HC Deb 27 April 1994 vol 242 cc336-41 10.15 pm
Mr. Rogers

I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 10, line 20, after 'State', insert— '7A. The Tribunal shall submit details of every determination made by it, its reasons for the determination and the relevant background papers to the Intelligence and Security Committee.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker

I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 4, at end insert— '. Where it is possible for the Tribunal to give reasons for its determination to the complainant without damaging national security it shall do so.'.

Mr. Rogers

The amendments relate to the tribunal and the oversight committee. [Interruption.] It is very difficult to hear oneself speak because of all of the noise from the Government Front Bench and the racket from the Back Benches.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I do not think that the conversation is confined to the Front Benches. The hon. Gentleman's point is well taken.

Mr. Rogers

I am glad that some Government Members have been able to have an enjoyable evening; they look all the better for it.

The reason for the amendments is to enable the Committee, as we have described in the last group of amendments in relation to clause 10, to consider the workings of the two services. For it to do so, it must know what complaints have been made and how they have been dealt with by the tribunal.

The vast majority of complaints to the current security service tribunal appear to be unjustified. Indeed, since the commission was set up and the tribunals have been in operation, the number of complaints is in the low 40s. None of those has been accepted by the commissioner, even for investigation, without being related to the tribunal in any way.

Therefore, it is important that the tribunal reports to the oversight committee to see whether any complaints are justified. Of course, that information will be helpful for the committee to carry out its work, and the committee would also need the power to call for information from the tribunal. During the debate on the previous group of amendments, we talked about the power of the committee to compel witnesses to appear before it and order people to provide information for it. The Government would not accept that. Within the closed circle of secrecy that the Government are creating, surely there is no harm or difficulty in the tribunal reporting to the scrutiny committee. It is within the circle of secrecy that the Minister is so anxious to maintain and would not affect national security in any way.

Amendment No. 24 is extremely important. It deals with whether the tribunal should give reasons for its determination to complainants so long as national security is not involved. The amendment seeks to give the complainant greater rights to natural justice. The tribunal would have to give some details to the complainant.

The procedure envisaged in the Bill is completely secretive. Everything is done by post. There is no hearing. Once complainants have made a complaint, they receive a letter saying that the case is being investigated. A few months later they receive another letter saying that no determination has been made in their favour. That is the pattern that has prevailed under the Security Service Act 1989. No information is given about what has happened in the intervening period, who has been investigated and who has been interviewed. The complainant has no access to any information, even if the disclosure of the information would not affect national security.

Without access to any of the results of the tribunal's investigation, the complainant is in an impossible position and cannot argue his or her case properly. Therefore, the so-called remedy is of little value. In some cases, it will not be possible to reveal any information, but in many cases it will be possible. As we have said, we support most of the provisions of the Bill because we believe that we have to have a secret intelligence service and it has to be allowed to carry out its job properly. However, the procedures laid down in the Bill do not comply with safeguards contained in article 6 of the European convention on human rights.

In addition to the failure to provide any information on the allegations that may have justified surveillance, as we have seen the tribunal can determine only whether the service had reasonable grounds for its actions. It cannot consider the correctness of the service's decision that any particular action or surveillance was justified.

Since the 1989 Act set up the tribunal for the security service, no complaint has ever been upheld by the tribunal. That shows that the model for what is envisaged in the Bill not only has an imperfect record but does little to further the interests of natural justice. We believe that the amendments are extremely important in the general structure of the Bill. Therefore, we shall press them to a vote.

Mr. David Davis

May I begin by correcting something that I am sure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) did not intend to put on the record. He said that of the 40 complaints none was investigated. I think that he meant that there were no determinations in favour of the complainants. All the complaints were investigated. As I said in Committee, although the commissioner has the right not to investigate if he judges a complaint to be vexatious, he has investigated every complaint put to him.

I cannot commend the amendments to the House. Both have been discussed previously in another place and in Committee. As I explained in Committee, amendment No. 23 would increase the access of the oversight committee to information and by so doing would risk confusing and overlapping its functions with those of the tribunal.

The legislation is framed in a way which ensures that there is a proper, independent and effective form of redress for complainants. That is what is important and what the tribunal is for. The oversight committee's remit is to examine the administration, policy and expenditure of the agencies. The Bill provides that they shall have access to the information that they require to fulfil that remit, subject to the provisions of schedule 3. The committee has no role in investigating complaints, nor is it its role to oversee the work of the tribunal.

The investigation of complaints naturally involves detailed consideration of precise operational information. That may include information listed in paragraph 4 of schedule 3 which is defined as sensitive. For that reason, we are not prepared to accept that the tribunal should automatically give details of all its cases to the oversight committee.

At first sight, amendment No. 24 attracts some sympathy. It requires the tribunal to give reasons to a complainant for its determination, if it can do so without endangering national security. The amendment has an attraction, since I appreciate that complainants may feel aggrieved when they receive no explanation for the tribunal's decision on their case, whether their complaint is upheld or not.

Before I explain why we have a problem with the amendment, the House should remember that many organisations throughout the world—and closer to home—are keen to learn about security and intelligence apparatus and techniques in this country. That is self-evident. Many of those organisations are extremely sophisticated and have considerable resources. They are capable of monitoring all sorts of information and much can be inferred from what is not, as well as what is, made public when collating intelligence information.

As the Government have often said, they remain absolutely committed to ensuring the continued security of the agencies' operations. Without that security the work of the agencies would be ineffective. For that reason, it is vital that information about the operations and procedures of the agencies is not inadvertently divulged in any circumstances.

Security would obviously be jeopardised if complainants who were properly the subject of investigation were made aware of that fact. If, on the other hand, the practice of informing only those complainants against whom no action had been taken were introduced, it could clearly be inferred that complainants who were not so informed had been the subject of action by an agency. Security would therefore be jeopardised.

Accordingly, in the Government's view, almost any practice of disclosure to a complainant would in the long term damage national security. That would make the amendment ineffective, if not arguably dangerous, and for that reason I cannot commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 258.

Division No. 225] [10.30 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Kilfoyle, Peter
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Lewis, Terry
Barnes, Harry Llwyd, Elfyn
Beith, Rt Hon A. J. Loyden, Eddie
Blunkett, David Lynne, Ms Liz
Boyes, Roland Macdonald, Calum
Bradley, Keith McFall, John
Byers, Stephen Mackinlay, Andrew
Caborn, Richard McWilliam, John
Callaghan, Jim Maddock, Mrs Diana
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Mahon, Alice
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Mandelson, Peter
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry) Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Chisholm, Malcolm Maxton, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Michael, Alun
Cohen, Harry Milburn, Alan
Connarty, Michael Miller, Andrew
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Morley, Elliot
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Mullin, Chris
Corbyn, Jeremy O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Cousins, Jim O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Cox, Tom Pike, Peter L.
Cunliffe, Lawrence Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Davidson, Ian Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l) Primarolo, Dawn
Dixon, Don Randall, Stuart
Dowd, Jim Raynsford, Nick
Eastham, Ken Redmond, Martin
Etherington, Bill Reid, Dr John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Foster, Don (Bath) Rogers, Allan
Fyfe, Maria Sheerman, Barry
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Short, Clare
Godman, Dr Norman A. Simpson, Alan
Graham, Thomas Skinner, Dennis
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Wicks, Malcolm
Gunnell, John Winnick, David
Hanson, David Wise, Audrey
Hinchliffe, David Young, David (Bolton SE)
Home Robertson, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Tellers for the Ayes:
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) Mr. Eric Illsley and
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) Mr. Gordon McMaster.
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) Baldry, Tony
Alexander, Richard Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay) Beggs, Roy
Amess, David Bellingham, Henry
Arbuthnot, James Biffen, Rt Hon John
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Body, Sir Richard
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Ashby, David Booth, Hartley
Aspinwall, Jack Boswell, Tim
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E) Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Bowden, Andrew
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) Bowis, John
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) Brandreth, Gyles
Brazier, Julian Hawksley, Warren
Bright, Graham Heathcoat-Amory, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Hendry, Charles
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Browning, Mrs. Angela Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Budgen, Nicholas Horam, John
Burns, Simon Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Burt, Alistair Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Peter Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Carlisle, John (Luton North) Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Carrington, Matthew Hunter, Andrew
Carttiss, Michael Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Cash, William Jack, Michael
Chapman, Sydney Jenkin, Bernard
Churchill, Mr Jessel, Toby
Clappison, James Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif) Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Kilfedder, Sir James
Coe, Sebastian Kirkhope, Timothy
Congdon, David Knapman, Roger
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Knox, Sir David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Cormack, Patrick Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Couchman, James Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Cran, James Legg, Barry
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) Leigh, Edward
Davies, Quentin (Stamford) Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Davis, David (Boothferry) Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Day, Stephen Lidington, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph Lightbown, David
Devlin, Tim Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Lord, Michael
Dover, Den Luff, Peter
Duncan, Alan Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Duncan-Smith, Iain MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Durant, Sir Anthony Maclean, David
Eggar, Tim McLoughlin, Patrick
Elletson, Harold McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter Madel, Sir David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) Maitland, Lady Olga
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) Malone, Gerald
Evans, Roger (Monmouth) Mans, Keith
Faber, David Marlow, Tony
Fabricant, Michael Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Fenner, Dame Peggy Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Fishburn, Dudley Mates, Michael
Forman, Nigel Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Forth, Eric Merchant, Piers
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman Mills, Iain
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger Moate, Sir Roger
French, Douglas Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Fry, Sir Peter Monro, Sir Hector
Gallie, Phil Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Gardiner, Sir George Moss, Malcolm
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan Nelson, Anthony
Garnier, Edward Neubert, Sir Michael
Gill, Christopher Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Gillan, Cheryl Nicholls, Patrick
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Gorst, John Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) Norris, Steve
Greenway, John (Ryedale) Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) Oppenheim, Phillip
Grylls, Sir Michael Ottaway, Richard
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn Page, Richard
Hague, William Patnick, Irvine
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Pawsey, James
Hampson, Dr Keith Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hanley, Jeremy Porter, David (Waveney)
Hannam, Sir John Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew Rathbone, Tim
Harris, David Redwood, Rt Hon John
Hawkins, Nick Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Richards, Rod Temple-Morris, Peter
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm Thomason, Roy
Robathan, Andrew Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) Thomton, Sir Malcolm
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) Thurnham, Peter
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) Townend, John (Bridlington)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Sackville, Tom Tracey, Richard
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim Tredinnick, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas Trend, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover) Twinn, Dr Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian Viggers, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Shersby, Michael Walden, George
Sims, Roger Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) Waller, Gary
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Soames, Nicholas Waterson, Nigel
Speed, Sir Keith Watts, John
Spencer, Sir Derek Wells, Bowen
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Spink, Dr Robert Whitney, Ray
Spring, Richard Whittingdale, John
Sproat, Iain Widdecombe, Ann
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John Wilkinson, John
Steen, Anthony Willetts, David
Stephen, Michael Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Stern, Michael Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Streeter, Gary Wolfson, Mark
Sweeney, Walter Yeo, Tim
Sykes, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher) Tellers for the Noes:
Taylor, John M. (Solihull) Mr. Timothy Wood and
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E) Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to