Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, appeared to be revelling in the prospect of making the security of Britain, and its allies, a key election issue.
Britain and the west faced “the greatest challenge to our collective security for decades”, he said in a speech on Tuesday at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) in London. “Unprecedented demands” were being placed on Britain’s security and intelligence agencies, Hammond warned. Security, he suggested, would be a top priority for a Conservative government.
In the light of mounting pressure on the budget for the armed forces and a crescendo of warnings about cuts in the defence budgets of Britain and its European allies, the latest coming on Tuesday from the US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, Hammond was treading on potentially dangerous ground.
Yet in his speech, the foreign secretary was concerned more with Britain’s intelligence agencies than the armed forces. He suggested that they were being distracted and their morale was being undermined by those who were challenging or criticising their activities.
Hammond referred in passing to criticism of MI5’s handling of Mohammed Emwazi, the Briton identified as the Islamic State killer “Jihadi John”. He was exercised most by the continuing debate – triggered by the revelations of the US whistleblower Edward Snowden – over what surveillance and interception powers GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 should have. That debate “could not be allowed to run forever”. Hammond stressed that “this is urgent business” and a Conservative government would legislate on the matter early in the next parliament.
He suggested that the intelligence agencies were suffering because of the failure, largely due to Liberal Democrat opposition, to give them more powers in what is dubbed a “snoopers’ charter”.
Hammond hinted that GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 should have the right to intercept any communications data, however it was sent and whatever route it passed through. The agencies were faced with the painstaking and dangerous task of building up an accurate picture of terrorist organisations. They had to deal with potential state adversaries, including a Russian leader “bent on subverting sovereign nations”. Hammond said Russia had “the potential to pose the single greatest threat to our security”.
Meanwhile, radicalised lone wolves, inspired by internet propaganda, had proved to be just as deadly as terrorist groups, Hammond added, pointing to recent attacks in Paris and Sydney. With this in mind, the time had come to “draw a line under the debate” about what powers the security and intelligence agencies should have.
The answer, as far as Hammond was concerned, seemed obvious. The MP for Runnymede, where King John added his seal to the Magna Carta 800 years ago, pointed to the recent decision to boost the resources and powers of the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC) and publish the guidelines for MI5 and MI6 officers questioning detainees at home or abroad.
Yet these moves were not the result of a government volunteering more transparency and accountability of Britain’s agencies, but of
constant pressure from human rights groups, journalists and some MPs.
On Thursday, the ISC is due to publish its long-awaited report on the Snowden disclosures and the conflict between state surveillance and personal privacy. Hammond clearly hopes that will be the end of the debate.
One discussion that will not go away is over the prospect of further deep cuts in Britain’s armed forces and the country’s defence spending falling below Nato’s target of 2% of GDP.
It will be a huge embarrassment for the Conservatives and has already provoked warnings from former generals, Telegraph readers and other elements of the Tories’ natural constituency. Power described anticipated defence cuts by Britain and other European countries as “concerning”.
She said: “The number of missions that require advanced militaries to contribute around the world is growing, not shrinking – whether it’s the Ebola [mission] ... or whether it’s the anti-Isil [Islamic State].
“We’re looking at an awful lot of threats and many of those threats are migrating into Europe, at least in the form of Isil. And yet, we haven’t seen European defence spending reach the 2% of GDP level that European leaders committed to.”
A Rusi report published on Monday said the squeeze on Britain’s defence budget would lead to “a remarkably sharp reduction in the footprint of defence in UK society”. Malcolm Chalmers, the report’s author, concluded: “The government is not yet convinced that strategic security risks are high enough to justify an exemption for defence from austerity.”
Hammond wants the debate about the powers of intelligence agencies to end. One debate yet to be properly started is what the money allocated to the armed forces should actually be spent on. There are expensive weapons systems in the defence budget which are of little use against terrorists, or even a more aggressive Russia. Meanwhile, it could be well argued, what the intelligence agencies need are more resources, not more power.
