Speaking in the Security update - Officials Secrets Act Case: The 2002 and 2003 integrated reviews were very clear. All the officials and the security services called and said that China was a significant threat. That was sufficient to give to the CPS, not even by ministers but by... officials. The question is: why wasn’t it? But the question I really wanted to ask today concerns this absurdity about the role, or lack of role, of the National Security Adviser. The government says he wasn’t involved in any matters of substance — but isn’t it the role of the National Security Adviser to be involved in all matters of substance when it comes to national security? So, what’s the point of a National Security Adviser who does not involve themselves in matters of national security, as in this case? Instead, we are meant to believe that the Deputy National Security Adviser is allowed, in this case, to involve themselves in substantial matters of national security, but not apparently discuss these substantial matters of national security with the National Security Adviser. This does seem to be an absolute matter of substantial absurdity.show more

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

75,021 subscribers

Поделиться Скачать