§ 4. Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)If he will make a statement on the capability of the Security Service to monitor subversive groups. [121534]
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw)The functions of the Security Service are set out in section 1 of the Security Service Act 1989 as amended by the 1996 Act. The Security Service cannot, on its own account, investigate activities, or planned activities, unless they are threats to national security.
It has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments not to comment on the operations and capabilities of the Security Service. However, I can say that I, as Home Secretary, and the director general of the service are both content that the service is properly resourced to undertake its statutory functions.
§ Dr. LewisAll I can say in response is that they are two people with a minority opinion. Did not the Security Service used to have as its F branch a highly effective organisation for monitoring subversion on the extreme left and the extreme right? Is not it a fact that, both last year and this year, the Home Secretary came to the House bemoaning the fact that demonstrations in the City and Whitehall were impossible properly to take precautions against because of a lack of advance knowledge of what the demonstrators were going to do? Will the Home Secretary now confirm that it was a mistake for his Government to close down F branch of the Security Service as they did, thus enfeebling the ability of the Security Service to take preventive measures, notwithstanding the grudges that he and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends have against F section for its successful monitoring of their activities in the past?
§ Mr. StrawI have to explain to the hon. Gentleman that I bear few grudges and I bear no grudge against whoever it was who thought that their days could best be spent on deciding whether I was subversive. Events showed at the time, as they have since, that that was—generally speaking—a waste of public money. The hon. Gentleman's definition of subversion stretches more widely than that of the director general of the Security Service and that in the Security Service Act 1989. The Act's definition is particular and, as the then Home Secretary—now Lord Hurd—said at the time of its passage,
There is no power in the Bill to enable the Security Service to take any interest in any person or organisation or any activity or enterprise which presents no threat to the security of the nation as a whole.—[Official Report, 17 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 218.]662 That has been the template for the service since the Act came into force in 1989. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman's view is that even the new Labour party is a deeply subversive organisation.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)Unlike the Home Secretary, I do bear a grudge, and it is against Mrs. Stella Rimington for what she did to the miners in 1984 by abusing the security services. Will the Home Secretary carefully consider the serious allegations contained in this weekend's The Sunday Times in relation to Mrs. Rimington and Mr. Michael Bettaney and, in particular, whether Mr. Bettaney was an alcoholic who had no business operating in the most sensitive areas of the security services? I do not ask for a reply off the top of my right hon. Friend's head, but I would like a considered reply from the Home Office.
§ Mr. StrawI am grateful to my hon. Friend for the saving clause added to his question, because I cannot give a reply off the top of my head. I will look into the matter. I would also point out that if there is a responsibility for the fact that in any period in our history the activities of the Security Service have ranged more widely than they would do today, that responsibility ultimately lies with those Ministers directly involved—the Home Secretary and Prime Minister of the day—not with those who were public servants.
§ Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)Does the Home Secretary agree that the capability of the Security Service to monitor subversive groups, or perform any other activity successfully, is wholly undermined by the example being set by Dame Stella Rimington in seeking to publish her memoirs? Does he further agree that members of the Security Service should be under a lifetime duty of confidentiality and that Dame Stella's actions set a wholly unwelcome precedent?
§ Mr. StrawI understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Members of the Security Service and other similar agencies are under lifetime obligations that they entered into voluntarily upon their employment. I understand that Dame Stella Rimington's manuscript was submitted by her in draft to the Cabinet Secretary in accordance with the normal procedures and will be dealt with according to those same procedures.