A spat has opened up between a watchdog committee of MPs and peers and senior Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden over access to newly appointed national security adviser Jonathan Powell.
The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy is keen to hold an evidence session with Powell, who was appointed as NSA in November – something that has happened with all previous holders of the role since it was created in 2010.
However, McFadden has declined a request for a public session with Powell to be arranged on the grounds that the former diplomat and chief of staff to Tony Blair is employed as a special adviser rather than a civil servant, unlike his predecessors.
McFadden argues that “longstanding practice”dictates that spads should not give evidence to select committees on behalf of government and that only ministers and civil servants can do so.
He is proposing that deputy national security advisers and cabinet secretary Sir Chris Wormald should give evidence to the JCNSS in place of the national security adviser – but stresses that Powell is happy to meet with the committee in private.
JCNSS chair Matt Western said the committee – which includes former cabinet secretary and NSA Lord Mark Sedwill – was “unanimous” that the role of national security adviser should be subject to direct parliamentary scrutiny regardless of the postholder's employment status.
Labour MP Western said the government’s own Osmotherly Rules on how evidence should be provided to select committees includes a “presumption” for ministers to agree a request for evidence from any named official – including spads.
Western added that Powell is “not an ordinary special adviser” and is “at the forefront of discussions with international counterparts”, including US national security adviser Make Waltz.
The committee has also taken issue with the government’s refusal to share National Security Council agendas and minutes, which it says is a departure from practice since 2013.
Western, who is MP for Warwick and Leamington Spa, suggested that the government’s approach to its requests represents a rowing back on precedent and will leave the committee “stifled” in terms of doing its job.
“Last week, the prime minister told the public that their defence and security was the number one priority of this government,” he said. “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.”
In a letter to McFadden this week, Western asked how preventing JCNSS from having “essential insight” sat with the government’s ambition of “pursuing greater transparency with parliament”.
He also warned that the Osmotherly Rules allow committees to issue an order for the attendance of a witness, and request the House to enforce it. The practice is described in the 2014 version of the rules as “a very exceptional action”.
In earlier correspondence with the committee, McFadden said Powell’s status as a spad meant it had “not been judged appropriate” for him to appear before the JCNSS in public.
Refusing the committee’s request for National Security Council agendas and minutes, McFadden wrote: “It is a longstanding precedent that information relating to discussions that have taken place in cabinet and its committees, and how often they have met, is not disclosed.”
Western’s response states: “I would be grateful if you could explain what has changed since the last parliament.”