Spies in the spotlight: Hitchens says Britain's intelligence services should advise, not dictate policy

Peter Hitchens argues in a Daily Mail column that Britain's spies should discreetly advise elected government rather than use public platforms to declare or imply open conflict with Russia. He revisits decades of controversy around the Secret Intelligence Service, commonly described as 'the unmentionables,' and contends that intelligence officers belong behind the scenes rather than as public actors in policy battles.

He notes the Service's fraught history, including defections by Philby, Burgess, Maclean and Blunt in the 1950s, and wartime episodes along the Dutch border. He questions whether SIS has earned trust as a policy-shaping actor, pointing to historical episodes such as the Suez crisis and the 2003 Iraq invasion, as well as Britain's 2011 intervention in Libya. He adds that SIS, technically, is not authorized to operate domestically, complicating arguments that it should be a public policy voice.

Last week, Hitchens highlights what he calls a troubling development: the SIS chief, Blaise Metreweli, appeared in a semi-public setting, addressing the BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner in what he describes as a private dining room at SIS's new headquarters. He says Metreweli used the occasion to discuss China and Russia in ways that implied it was steering policy rather than offering discreet advice. He observes that Britain still maintains an embassy in Moscow and that the BBC continues to provide a robust foreign bureau, prompting questions about who should set policy and who should report on it. The columnist asks whether it is appropriate for a non-ministerial intelligence official to steer public debate on foreign policy rather than leave such decisions to Parliament and the government. He argues that spies should advise, not declare, policy, and that the public budget for intelligence should be justified by demonstrably making citizens safer, not by expanding public influence over politics.

Hitchens also warns against elevating fictional spies to role-model status. He notes that James Bond, though an iconic export, never existed in real life, and suggests British secrecy should not be treated as a public drama but as a tool for national safety.

In a broader reflection on change, the columnist cites a 1905 Ward Lock guide to London, which lists just 17 foreign embassies and notes where foreign-born residents lived in Victorian London. He uses the historical snapshot to illustrate how national borders and demographics have shifted over 120 years, underscoring that the modern world bears little resemblance to the imperial capital described in old guidebooks. He argues that such changes help explain why debates over borders and sovereignty remain contentious in the 21st century.

A separate but related column in the same note bundle recounts a "golden opportunity missed" in urban transport policy. It recounts Leeds' plan to revive tram networks, which was put off until the 2030s after the old system was scrapped in 1959. The piece laments the car lobby that drove trams from British cities, and contrasts Leeds' historic tram network with modern efforts in France to rebuild light rail as a more sustainable form of urban transport. The author argues that such investments would be wiser than costly ultra-modern projects like HS2, arguing that the era of grand transport spectacles should yield to practical urban mobility.

The essay closes with a Christmas meditation: even amid darker and more dangerous times, the spirit of the season shines more brightly. The author recalls spending Christmas in glum and violent places and wishes readers a blessed Christmas, a reminder that light persists even as civilizations contend with danger and upheaval.