Question
I thank the Security Minister for his statement on this vital topic, and welcome the much-delayed start to the national conversation. It is widely acknowledged that, in the event of conflict, military effectiveness is reliant on civilian systems being able to function under attack, be it physical or cyber-attack, and that relies on us taking a whole-of-society approach. Why is the forthcoming national exercise, Albiston Shadow, classified, thereby excluding those from outside Government? If we accept that resilience is a whole-of-society endeavour, why are the Government not engaging more widely with industry, councils, civil society and Members of this House, so that we can properly stress-test the planning? What information-sharing mechanisms have been established to ensure that key individuals without the necessary security clearance are included in the event of crisis or conflict?
Answer
I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee for his question, and I agree with his broader point about the importance of wider societal resilience—he is absolutely right about that. That work is taking place through the home defence programme, on which we lead through the Cabinet Office, though we work with partners across Government, including the Ministry of Defence. He referred to Albiston Shadow, which is due to be the largest home defence exercise run in the United Kingdom for many years. We are still working through its precise design, so I will reflect on his comments, and we will look at whether we can accommodate some of the points that he has helpfully flagged.
Verdict: RED (23/100)
The reply gives some background on the Albiston Shadow exercise and agrees that wider societal resilience matters, but it is mostly hedged. It does not explain why the exercise is classified or why people outside Government are excluded, and it does not explain why engagement is limited to Government partners. It does not address how key individuals without security clearance would be reached in a crisis, so the asker would likely need to follow up for specifics.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the reason for classifying the forthcoming national exercise, Albiston Shadow, and so excluding those outside Government from it? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply describes Albiston Shadow's scale and says its design is still being worked out, but never gives a reason for classifying it or for excluding those outside Government. Its only response is a commitment to reflect on the points raised and to see whether some can be accommodated, which does not answer the 'why'. |
| What is the reason the Government is not engaging more widely with industry, councils, civil society and Members of the House on resilience planning, so that the planning can be stress-tested? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply agrees that wider societal resilience matters and describes the home defence programme as the vehicle for that work, but it only cites partners across Government, not industry, councils, civil society or Members. It gives no reason for not engaging more widely, so the 'why not' part is unanswered, and the commitment to reflect on the comments is non-specific. |
| What information-sharing mechanisms have been established to ensure that key individuals without the necessary security clearance are included in the event of crisis or conflict? | Not Addressed | Generic | No statement describes any information-sharing mechanism for reaching key individuals without security clearance in a crisis; the only related reference is to working with partners across Government, which does not answer the question. |