Thread by @AndrewPRLevi

Much wailing “why did the security services let it happen”.

“It” being subversion of the UK government by Putin’s agents.

The answer couldn’t be more straightforward.

We have five security services, not counting the armed forces.

They all answer to the government.

A 🧵/1.

The five services are:

1. Security Service (“MI5”). Overseen by the Home Sec.

2. Secret Intelligence Service (“MI6”). Foreign Sec.

3. GCHQ. Ditto.

4. Defence Intelligence Service. Defence Sec.

5. Metropolitan Police/ SO15 (incorporates former “Special Branch”). Home Sec. /2.

And by whom are those cabinet ministers themselves overseen?

The Prime Minister, of course.

The Joint Intelligence Committee (supported by the Joint Intelligence Organisation), on which chiefs of the intelligence services are represented, plays an important role. /3.

The JIC’s Chair answers to the Cabinet Secretary, who … answers to the Prime Minister.

Then there’s the National Security Secretariat, the head of which … you get the idea.

And the Homeland Security Group, part of the Home Office, obviously overseen by … yup, good guess. /4.

There’s also Parliament’s Intelligence & Security Committee.

It’s set up under statute - the Justice & Security Act 2013 - unlike other parliamentary committees.

It meets in secret.

It’s answerable jointly to the House of Commons & the House of Lords. /5.

Various Acts of Parliament provide the legal frameworks for the intelligence/security services, & the ISC.

Ministers, officials & parliamentarians face legal requirements & constraints, & their actions can be subject to judicial review. There is some safeguard in that. /6.

But even assuming, as I do, all officials concerned are of great integrity, ultimately:

1. they must, within the law, do what ministers decide

2. the decision what to do about serious threats to national security rests with minsters/ PM, whatever the JIC etc advise /7.

Is there, then, a set of indisputable legal requirements to which officials could refer & on which they could insist, if faced by ministers or a PM refusing to protect the country against a clear threat - of attack or subversion, say?

In short, no. /8.

Corrupt or subverted (or stupid) ministers can’t be stopped by officials.

They can be stopped by the PM.

And, clearly, the top prize for any adversary of the UK would be to corrupt & subvert the PM.

But what about the Law Officers, the Attorney General for example? /9.

Good point.

Their job is to ensure the government acts legally.

But if they’re subverted or corrupted (or weak or stupid) themselves, &/or appointed by a subverted, corrupted (or stupid) PM, good luck with that. /10.

Which brings us to the ISC. They’re the parliamentary guardian of our security. Can they save the country?

No.

They have no executive or legislative power. But they can & do oversee (the JIC, for example), investigate &, under constraints, publish.

Russia report, anyone? /11.

The PM & the most senior ministers set the priorities & requirements for the security services.

It’s possible for those to be wrongly skewed. In good faith. Or bad.

The country depends on the PM/ministers acting in good faith. Taking proper advice. And not getting it wrong./12.

To sum up:

- unless the PM & Cabinet are of the highest integrity & quality, there’s little defence against corruption & subversion of the entire system of government

- under such circumstances the best officials & best intelligence can’t do anything about it /13.

- Parliament can do something about it. But the ISC is only a (very unusual) committee & is constrained.

If a majority of MPs is prepared to support, or turn a blind eye to, a corrupted, subverted Cabinet (for party-political reasons, say) it’s game over.

Sorry. /14. End

Royal Addendum: surely HM The Queen can intervene?

No.

She must act on the PM’s advice.

Bagehot famously ascribed to the Sovereign the right to be consulted, to encourage & to warn.

No help, I’m afraid.

Illegal Leaking Addendum: surely intelligence officials can just leak everything? Possibly. But they’ll almost certainly be breaking the Official Secrets Act, with serious personal consequences. Also, leak to whom? Most of the press won’t listen. More likely to attack the leaker.

What-Do-You-Know-About-It-Anyway-Andrew? Addendum: you might ask that, I couldn’t possibly comment. Trust me. Or not. Your choice.

Corrections/ clarifications:

Tweet 2

(1) “Security services” is a loose, colloquial term. I’m using it here to mean relevant components of the UK intelligence community & law enforcement.

(2) *The* Security Service is what’s otherwise known as MI5. /1.

(3) “Defence Intelligence Service” is wrong. Apologies. DIS was, until 2009, the “Defence Intelligence Staff”. Afterwards it became simply “Defence Intelligence” (DI). It’s an integral part of the MoD. /2. End

@threadreaderapp unroll please.