§ 11.15 a.m.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce legislation to establish parliamentary control of the secret service.
§ Baroness CoxMy Lords, the Government do not consider such legislation to be necessary and have no plans to introduce it.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, refused to answer my Written Question on 2nd July asking on how many Members of Parliament MI5 holds files? Is it not evidence of the need for more effective parliamentary control if Parliament cannot even discover how many of its own Members are under surveillance?
§ Baroness CoxMy Lords, may I take the second point, which is a more general one, first? My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary take extremely seriously their responsibility for satisfying themselves that the security service operates entirely within the letter and the spirit of its directive. They are accountable to Parliament for that responsibility just as they are for the discharge of their other duties. In line with the policy which successive Governments have followed, it is not the practice, and it would not be in the national interest, to disclose detailed information about security matters. I take exception to the noble Lord's response to the Answer which my noble friend gave on July 2nd. I think that it met the points adequately.
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy Lords, does my noble friend agree that we should not bring the British intelligence service under closer parliamentary control and therefore more into the open while the Soviet Union and its surrogate states are expanding the training of terrorists and assassination squads, not only within Russia but in their surrogate states such as Cuba, Libya, Lebanon, South Yemen and elsewhere?
§ Baroness CoxMy Lords, I have the greatest sympathy for the comments which have just been put forward by my noble friend.
§ Lord GladwynMy Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us in which democracies the secret service or its equivalent is under parliamentary control?
§ Baroness CoxMy Lords, I am afraid that I do not have an answer to that question. I shall be pleased to write to the noble Lord when I find out.
§ Lord AnnanMy Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that if parliamentary control were exercised over the secret services they could hardly remain secret for very long?
§ Baroness CoxMy Lords, I cannot dispute the noble Lord's logic.
§ Lord CacciaMy Lords, it is difficult to deal with this question and to know precisely what is meant by "parliamentary control". If it means more open inquiry into the activities of the secret services (plural), does the Minister not agree that the example of the United States, where there is more senatorial investigation into the CIA, illustrates the dangers involved in that sort of procedure?
§ Baroness CoxMy Lords, I have sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, and I would agree.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in the absence of information rumours abound? It is said, for example, that there are Members of Parliament who are under surveillance or on whom there are files; that they include ex-Ministers; and that they are all members of the Labour Party. Without actually giving names, would it not be desirable for Parliament to have a few facts? After all, in a democracy are we not entitled to know?
§ Baroness CoxMy Lords, your Lordships will be aware that successive Governments have taken the view that it is not in the national interest to comment on the detail of security matters. Your Lordships will recall that as recently as 16th May (at column 1295 of Hansard) my noble friend Lord Whitelaw made it clear that there were occasions when it was not possible for Ministers to be as forthcoming as they might wish to be. I hope your Lordships will agree that we should adhere to that principle.
Viscount TonypandyMy Lords, does the Minister agree that honourable Members of another place and noble Lords do not require an extension of parliamentary privilege so that they would be treated differently from any other member of the country when it comes to the inquiries of our security authorities?
§ Baroness CoxMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for that very pertinent and helpful contribution.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, will your Lordships permit me to ask a final question on this matter? May I suggest—
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to agree that it is possible to institute 1402 parliamentary control through the Privy Council, or in some such way, and that it is desirable to do this? I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the situation cannot be left as it is, for the simple reason that there is evidence that the secret services are out of control.
§ Baroness CoxMy Lords, I cannot disagree too strongly. The Director-General is responsible directly to the Home Secretary for the proper and the efficient working of the service. This means that the responsibilities of Ministers and of the Director-General are clearly defined and unequivocal. We should be very cautious indeed about the creation of new bodies which would risk blurring the present very clear train of responsibility.