Q. Even now, HMG is focusing on short-term or acute threats, and failing to think long term—unlike China—and China has historically been able to take advantage of this. The Government must adopt a longer-term planning cycle in regard to the future security of the UK if it is to face Chinese ambitions, which are not reset every political cycle. This will mean adopting policies that may well take years to stand up and require multi-year spending commitments—something that may well require Opposition support—but the danger posed by doing too little, too late, in this area is too significant to fall prey to party politics.
R. Tackling the threats posed by China requires the UK to have a clear strategy on China, which is forward thinking, joined up and utilises a 'whole-of-government' approach. Work to develop such a strategy may now be in train, but there is still a long way to go.
S. The Intelligence Community will play a key role in the work of the new Investment Security Unit (ISU): the classified and other technical advice that the Intelligence Community provide should shape the decisions made by the ISU as it seeks to balance the need for national security against economic priorities. It is essential that there is effective scrutiny and oversight of the ISU—and that can be undertaken only by this Committee.
T. We commend the action now being taken by the Government to counter interference by China—it is encouraging that the Government has finally woken up to the grave threat this poses to our national security.
U. However, it is worrying that 'policy ownership' of this national security activity, rather than being gripped at the centre by the Cabinet Office, has instead been devolved across the Government—in many instances to departments with no security remit or expertise. We have not been kept informed of these developments and, despite numerous requests, are not permitted to scrutinise this activity.
V. Effective Parliamentary oversight is not some kind of 'optional extra'—it is a vital safeguard in any functioning Parliamentary democracy, and the ISC is the only body that can do that. Moving responsibility for security matters to bodies not named in the ISC's Memorandum of Understanding is not consistent with Parliament's intent in the Justice and Security Act 2013: the Government should not be giving departments a licence to operate in the name of national security and hiding it from view.
195
