Boris Johnson is under mounting pressure to order a probe into claims Vladimir Putin’s Russia tried to sway the Brexit referendum.
The Prime Minister – who has surrounded himself with Vote Leave architects including Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove – and his Government were accused of an “astonishing lack of curiosity” over claims of Moscow meddling.
But Mr Johnson has continued to resist calls for an investigation.
Acting Lib Dem leader Ed Davey said Mr Johnson was giving the Russian leader president a “green light” to interfere in UK politics.
Yesterday’s publication of a long-delayed Intelligence and Security Committee report warned “Russia considers the UK one of its top Western intelligence targets”.
It highlighted espionage and cyber-attacks, election meddling and money laundering.
The report also branded the Kremlin’s influence in the UK the “new normal” after successive governments welcomed oligarchs – giving Putin’s allies links “at the highest levels” of British public life.
The committee said: “It has been clear for some time Russia has moved from potential partner to established threat, unwilling to adhere to international law.
“The murder of Alexander Litvinenko and the annexation of Crimea were stark indicators.
“It was the opinion of the committee that until recently the Government badly underestimated the response required to the Russia threat, and is still playing catch-up.”
ISC member Stewart Hosie said the committee “found it astonishing” ministers did not try to shield the EU vote from interference or probe claims of meddling. The SNP MP said: “No one in government knew if Russia interfered because they did not want to know.
“The UK Government actively avoided looking for evidence. We were told they haven’t seen any, but that is meaningless if they haven’t looked.”
They showed a “lack of curiosity”, Mr Hosie added – especially given claims Russia tried to influence the 2016 US presidential race and Scotland’s vote on independence in 2014.
Claims Russian actors were involved in the 2016 EU referendum have dogged the result.
Yesterday’s heavily redacted, 55-page report pointed to “widespread” fears about Russian TV channels and web accounts.
“Open source studies have pointed to the preponderance of pro-Brexit or anti-EU stories on RT and Sputnik, and the use of bots and trolls,” it said.
Ahead of an urgent question in Parliament today, Labour ’s Shadow Home Secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds said the Government had failed “on every level”, to match the “growing threat” from Russia.
Mr Thomas-Symonds said: “The report exposes deep systemic failings in the approach to security.
“[It] outlines a litany of hostile state activity, from cyber-warfare, interfering in democratic processes, acts of violence on UK soil and illicit finance.
“Little wonder the Government has been so keen to delay publication.”
Mr Johnson marks his first anniversary in Downing Street on Friday.
Asked yesterday if the PM believed the referendum result was “fair”, his spokesman said: “Yes. Absolutely.” The Government’s 20-page response to
the report said: “We have seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU referendum.”
Meanwhile Russian IT businessman Aleksej Gubarev, told the High Court he was “stunned” to be linked to a US Democratic Party “hacking incident”.
He is suing ex-British spy Chris Steele over a dossier alleging links between Donald Trump and Russia.
Mr Gubarev said: “I have never been involved with the Russian federal security services or any cyber-attacks on the US Democratic Party.”
'They focussed on the wrong question,' says expert
An expert who contributed to the report says it has too little evidence of Moscow’s meddling – because it focused “on the wrong questions”.
The highly-respected specialist in Russia and its intelligence networks was one of the key witnesses. He has previously advised UK intelligence on how Russia tries to sway public affairs.
He believes the report focused too much on “direct” interference such as hacking into systems, largely ignoring attempts to “influence” the UK.
The anonymous British specialist added: “The inquiry should have looked more at illicit Russian influence, not direct physical interference.
“It was rather focusing on the wrong questions. The real concern is ongoing influence by individuals, on the left and right, who suit Moscow’s agenda [and on] social media and Kremlin-managed media, including Russia Today. Its used to destabilise NATO and the EU.”
Bruce Jones, of Janes Defence Weekly, agreed: “No organisation was responsible for monitoring [Russian interference] or instructing it to be monitored, except ultimately the PM. No one knows if there was any or not.”
