Intelligence and Security Committee: Russia Report

The Government rejects any suggestion that it avoided investigating Russia. It has taken strong action, established the Defending Democracy programme and is committed to bringing forward legislation to counter hostile state activity and espionage.

The ISC report highlights deep systemic failings in the Government's approach to security. The Government has not looked at evidence of Russian interference, especially during the 2016 referendum. It is crucial that the Government stops playing catch-up and acts on the findings.

The Russia report was produced to a high standard due to the dedication of the ISC's staff, yet some within Government tried to interfere with it. The Minister must commit that no party political special advisers will be allowed near the ISC.

The report deserves serious and objective consideration. There is a need for an inquiry into both Brexit and the 2014 Scottish referendum campaigns, which only the UK Government can initiate. The Minister must clarify that there will be ample time to debate counter-threat measures.

The report highlights concerning aspects of Russian interference using modern technology with cold war tactics. Can the Minister assure that mistakes or underestimated threats are being addressed to protect our democracy and economy from future influence?

The Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee asked a question which was not answered by the Minister. Will he do so now, please?

Does the Minister agree that it is right for the SNP to explain what they knew about Russian interference in relation to Scotland and the independence referendum?

The Committee recommended a Bill to reform the Official Secrets Act and an espionage Act. I welcome today's announcement but urge the Minister to ensure that we get the legislation in place quickly, not just for spin.

Russia poses a national security threat and its cyber and disinformation actions are part of a new form of political competition. Does the Minister agree that we need to adapt quickly to this changing character of conflict?

I have been warning about Putin’s Russia for 19 years, calling for Magnitsky sanctions. The Government must clean up their act regarding visas and financial support from Russian oligarchs.

The Minister spoke of a foreign agent registration process but I am unclear about its scope—is it about spies or foreign lobbying? We need new laws on foreign lobbying as the US does.

We need to enhance our capabilities in technology and national security. When will the Government come forward with a strategy to secure our national security?

Does the Minister share my view that the Russia report underplays the bigger picture of risks through international institutions and the need for clarity about threats posed.

Asked the Minister whether he was aware of an alleged political attempt to remove the secretariat of the ISC and replace it with political placemen or women.

Praised those working in British intelligence and security services, including her father who served for 45 years during the cold war. Asked if resources would be provided to ensure effectiveness against new threats.

Criticised the 'nothing to see here' response from Whitehall, suggested that an inquiry into Russian interference in 2016 was necessary for strengthening national security.

Asked if the Government would continue working with NATO and other allies to tackle threats posed by Russia.

Questioned why Ministers did not want to know about Russian interference in elections and referendums, including donations through the Democratic Unionist party.

Suggested that social media companies hold great power yet have been left unaccountable for their inaction during the pandemic. Asked if online harms legislation would address this issue.

Asked about tier 1 investor visas, pointing out that Russians who invest £2 million or more can get a visa and convert it to citizenship after five years.

Suggested that Alex Salmond remains in the pay of the Kremlin as an apparatchik of Russia Today, questioning why nationalists do not condemn him.

Asked about lessons learned from the ISC report to counter Russian interference, especially on social media. Asked how safety can be balanced with political opinions.

Suggested that Mr Putin sees potential weakening of the UK as a win for Russian interests and asked if our country is better defended united.

Asked about steps to tackle the growth of an industry surrounding oligarchs who help extend Russian influence in the UK.

As a former special adviser at the Ministry of Defence during both the Syrian and the Ukrainian conflicts, I am well aware of the threat that Russia continues to pose to the UK and our allies. Will my right hon. Friend clarify what immediate next steps the Government will be taking to counter the disinformation and cyber-attacks—including, at the moment, against the vital work on a coronavirus vaccine?

The disinformation point is a very relevant one. Our counter-disinformation unit is led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, bringing all this action together across Government to highlight and call out work with the social media companies over this important time. It does incredibly important work to guard against disinformation now, as it has done before.

Let’s park the lines from Mr Cummings, shall we? The Conservative party takes money from the Russians, No. 10 suppressed the report, and the Prime Minister forgot that his first duty is the security of the British people. So will the Minister go away and tell the Prime Minister to investigate the Kremlin’s role in undermining our democracy?

I will take no lectures from the Labour party, or indeed the Whips’ question that the hon. Gentleman has asked me. This Government and my party are vigilant on issues of national security, and we will remain so.

The report said that it was surprisingly difficult to establish who has responsibility for what. That conclusion is supported by the Government’s response, which alludes to the responsibilities of the Paymaster General, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, DCMS, the Home Office, the Defence Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, and the PM. At 10 am this morning, we still did not know who had drawn the short straw and would come to the House to defend the indefensible.

No. I am very comfortable in underlining the Government’s commitment to defending our national security. As for the hon. Gentleman’s point about structure, this is about having a whole-Government approach, ensuring that each part of Government is engaged and working.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm for the people of Wolverhampton that our intelligence and security agencies are capable of identifying and dealing with any threat in this evolving battle space?

I can tell my hon. Friend of the support and resourcing that is given to our intelligence and security agencies and how we have such world-leading capabilities.

The ISC stressed the need to ensure that our response to the threat from Russia is not solely focused on national events and organisations. So what does the Minister intend to do to protect our public sector—our NHS and local government services, which he knows all about—from malicious Russian cyber-intrusion once funding for the national cyber-security programme comes to an end in March next year?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point, because our cyber-defences are something in which this Government have very clearly invested.

This morning, on the radio, Commissioner Cressida Dick said that people should be concerned about “the threat from Russia”. Will the Minister assure me that our security services will work with our police services to make sure that they have the data, the information and the resources to deal with any local threats?

There is strong join-up between our security and intelligence agencies as well as our police.

The Minister has told us today that he is confident that there is no need for an investigation into any potential Russian interference in the EU referendum, because if there had been, it would have been detected by existing processes. Given that this report sets out that there was Russian interference in other referendums and that the Russians continue to be involved in British politics, why does he think that the Russians chose to sit that one out?

Again, we are certainly hearing some questions that are about trying to refight the referendum. Actually, we should respect the referendum and we have been elected on a mandate to deliver on the Brexit referendum.

It comes as no surprise to me that the Russian state seeks to infiltrate and influence so many aspects of our society, but I am particularly worried by Russian cyber-activity, especially attempts to steal our secrets, intellectual property and new technologies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our offensive cyber-capabilities may well have to be enhanced further given the persistent and increasing threats from Russia?

My hon. Friend, with all of his experience, has highlighted a very important point about the need for offensive cyber-capabilities.

Despite repeated requests and reminders from hon. and right hon. Members, this Government have dithered and delayed for 10 long months and tried their very best to suppress the Russia report, and now we all know why. Given the threat to our national security and the fact that it was about preserving and protecting our very democracy itself, how could this Government have been so incompetent, so asleep at the wheel, and not even asked the bare minimum obvious questions?

I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation at all.

The ISC report rightly thanks five Russia experts from outside the intelligence community, two of whom have done some great work with the Legatum Institute. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking those individuals, the institute and, indeed, its visionary founder, Christopher Chandler, for having the courage and the commitment to expend the resources and take the risks to oppose Russian wrongdoing from the private sector?

I commend Legatum and all those who have sought to assemble evidence of the impact and the effect.

As if it was not bad enough that we have unelected peers making major decisions for Scotland, the report raises serious questions about several Members of the House of Lords, their links to business interests in Russia and the potential for those relationships to be exploited by the Russian state. Will the Government urgently support measures to enhance scrutiny of the incomes of the Lords to the same level as the rules for registering MPs’ interests?

I agree that the transparency of information about political donations is incredibly important.

The people of Darlington voted to leave the EU in 2016. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the referendum accurately recorded the genuine will of the people, and that the Government were right to deliver on that mandate and take us out of the EU?

Emphasised the long tradition of cross-party cooperation in independent scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), urging the Government to ensure its independence from political interference.

Reaffirmed the Government's commitment to maintaining the ISC’s independence, providing an assurance that there would be no government interference in the work of the ISC. He also addressed concerns about Russia by mentioning the existence of a dedicated unit at the Foreign Office focused on Russian threats.

Called for a specific unit at the Foreign Office to protect democratic structures from foreign interference, particularly focusing on the threat posed by Russia and its undermining of multilateral organisations.