HL Deb 09 May 1985 vol 463 cc783-8
Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on security which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement on security.

"On 22nd February I received the report of the Security Commission on their inquiry into the case of Michael Bettaney, the former security service officer who was tried for offences under the Official Secrets Acts and was sentenced to 23 years' imprisonment in April last year. The report is being presented to Parliament as a Command Paper this afternoon.

"The Commission have fully examined Bettaney's career in the security service, with the object of identifying any errors on the part of management in relation to Bettaney's employment.

"The Commission find that the process of recruiting Bettaney was carried out consistently with the procedures at the time. There is in fact no reason to doubt his loyalty at that time, or to suppose that he had at that stage ever contemplated the possibility of turning spy.

"The Commission make a number of serious criticisms of the errors by the security service in relation to the management of Bettaney's career. In particular, they conclude that there came a point in October 1982 when there should have been, but was not, a very full investigation of Bettaney's lifestyle, which would probably have led to the removal of his positive vetting clearance and the cessation of his employment in the security service.

"It remains the case, however, that Bettaney's attempts to get himself recruited as an agent of the Russian intelligence service were not successful.

"The security service's investigation which led to Bettaney's eventual conviction was effective and conclusive. Although in the course of his attempts to get himself recruited Bettaney did communicate some secret information to the Russians, he was arrested before he was able to pass over the major proportion of the secret information that he had collected and the grave damage that would have ensued by such communication was averted.

"In the light of their investigation, the Commission make a number of recommendations for changes in positive vetting procedures in the Security Service. The most significant of these is that, at quinquennial review, special and separate reports should always be called for from all those who have supervised the subject since clearance was last given. The Commission also recommend that the revised and improved arrangements which apply at present only to the more senior grades should now be extended to all staff. These recommendations are being put into effect.

"In the course of their investigation, the Commission received evidence of a more general character which was critical of various aspects of the internal organisation and management of the security service. They did not attempt to pass judgment on those criticisms, but have recorded their impression of aspects of organisation and management which seem to them to require examination and reassessment. The last chapter of the report makes some suggestions for changes in management attitudes and arrangements, and indicates a number of matters which in the Commission's view call for particular consideration.

"These criticisms and suggestions are being thoroughly examined and my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary and I are determined to see that action is taken to remedy management weaknesses.

"The new director general is giving the utmost care and attention to the Security Commission's criticism of errors in relation to Bettaney's employment, as well as to the general management criticisms to which I have referred. He will make the changes which are judged to be necessary to improve the organisation and management of the service and will report to my right honourable and learned friend and me later this year. I shall arrange for his conclusions and measures to be reported to the Security Commission for any further comment they may wish to make.

"Honourable Members, on both sides of the House, have expressed concern about the handling of members of the service who are troubled over particular matters and activities within the service. The director general has been asked to consider, and to report to my right honourable and learned friend and me, what developments he proposes by way of internal outlets for the expression of grievances or anxieties of individual members of the service.

"Finally, I emphasise that the criticisms of management do not extend to operations or overall efficiency. Indeed the Commission say that: 'nothing in this report is intended in any way to call in question the professional and operational efficiency of the security service, which we believe to be of a high order.' "Nevertheless the criticisms the Commission make of the handling of Bettaney's case are serious and every possible effort will be made to see that the shortcomings they describe do not occur again."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement, which deals with matters of the utmost importance. It is to be noted that several serious criticisms of mistakes by the security services in connection with the Bettaney case have been made by the Commission of Inquiry. We are glad that the report of the commission is being published as a Command Paper today. May we assume that it is being published in full and also that all of its recommendations are to be implemented?

We note that the revised arrangements are now to be extended to all members of the service, but it remains important that senior members of the staff should be most carefully vetted both on recruitment and regularly thereafter, and that they should be drawn from all sections of the community and from all parts of the United Kingdom. We welcome the Prime Minister's assurance that she and the Home Secretary are examining the criticisms and the proposals of the commission with a view to remedying matters. Can the noble Viscount say whether a further Statement will be made about their conclusions in due course, after they have completed their studies? Further, is the noble Viscount able to say whether there is to be any amalgamation of MI5, MI6, and the number of other agencies connected with them, and will the Joint Intelligence Committee in the Cabinet Office continue to filter information to the Prime Minister?

Can he also say a word about the use of polygraphs within the security services? This has been discussed—I have not had time to read the report myself—and is there not a considerable doubt about the value of these? Can he say whether the possibility of a high level committee of, say, Privy Counsellors and including senior judges and former chiefs of staff, has been considered? Otherwise, who is to vet the vetters? Finally, does the noble Viscount have confidence that the new proposals will stabilise the morale of the present serving officers which has, as we know, been shaken in recent years?

Baroness Seear

My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement—this, in many ways, very disquieting Statement. One cannot but be anxious about it. It is by no means the first report of this kind in view of the number of cases of this type which have occurred, and there must be a widespread feeling that all is not well with the security services.

That said, we welcome the appointment of the new director general who, we have reason to suppose, will be able to do a great deal to change matters for the better inside the services. We also note the recommendation that there should be improved provision for members of the service to express their grievances and anxieties about the way in which the service is run, or about matters which come to their attention. It cannot be for the good of the service that there are members within it who have doubts about what is going on and who feel grievances to which they cannot at present give adequate expression.

As things are at present, security matters are, I understand, in the hands exclusively in the last resort of the Prime Minister. In a democratic society such as ours, and having full regard to the obvious importance of high security in these matters, is it not possible that the time is coming when it will be advisable to have a joint committee of both Houses and of all parties to which security matters of this kind and reports of this sort would be referred?

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their comments on this Statement. First, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that the Government, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, all fully accept the very serious nature of the criticisms in this report and we are all determined to make sure that everything is done to put this right.

I should make clear for the avoidance of any doubt that some of the appendices—Appendices C, D and E—of the report are not to be published for operational reasons, and as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, mentioned publication of the report I think it is correct to make that further point. As for the implementation, yes, I think I made clear that that will most certainly happen. We are determined to do so, of course, in the first instance through the new director general of the security service, who will be charged with deciding what further measures should be taken; and indeed what further measures should be taken—in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—about grievances among the staff. It will depend on his report as to what further action might be taken after that.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether my right honourable friend will make a further Statement. The director general will, of course, make a report direct to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Naturally, I could not commit her to that at this stage, but I shall certainly make sure that she appreciates the view that has been expressed in this House, and that I think was expressed in another place, to which she did not wholly commit herself, but she understood the position. I suppose I have to say that that was nearly three hours ago now, but that is what I understand she said at that time.

So far as the question of amalgamating the security services is concerned, I do not know of any proposal to do that. Equally, of course, so far as the Joint Intelligence Unit of the Cabinet Office is concerned, its position will continue, as I understand it, as before. A polygraph was not, of course, in operation at the time when Bettaney was being positively vetted. However, the first phase of the polygraph pilot study is nearing completion. It was expected from the outset that the whole scheme would take at least two years. The earliest date for completion will therefore be some time in 1986.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about the possibility of a senior committee, and I think that the noble Baroness went somewhat further and asked about a joint committee of both Houses. I think that the first need is for the director general to make his report. He is the new director general and he should be allowed to make his report both on what improvements he sees in the service and, indeed, on how he sees the grievances being dealt with. Until that report is made, I think it would be premature to make any further comments. If I were to venture just one from my own experience of four years as Home Secretary, one has to consider very carefully what value such committees have—and I accept that it has to be considered at a later date—in view of the fact that there is a very limited amount that anybody can be told on some aspects of intelligence work.

Lord Rawlinson of Ewell

My Lords, while it is clear that it is very important that the errors that were made should be very carefully studied, does my noble friend accept that the security service consists of men of great distinction, who have over the years worked with great ability on matters which can rarely be made public, and that there have, of course, been times when there have been errors, and indeed more than errors, in their service? As one who first came into contact with them as a Law Officer as long ago as 1962, may I ask whether it is not right that they work in a field in a fundamentally free society which makes their work intensely difficult and which does not have the resources which are given to the Soviets, their opponent services, for them to do the work that they have to do? Generally therefore, does my noble friend agree that we should have great confidence and great respect for those who presently work in the security service?

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend. From my own limited experience—though, I suppose that four years is some time—I strongly confirm what he has said. I think perhaps it would be best for me to quote again to the House what the commission said in their report, because it bears entirely on what my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson said: Nothing in this report is intended in any way to call in question the professional and operational efficiency of the security service which we believe to be of a high order". I think that that is something which would be endorsed by many people who have had experience of our security service in this country, and it is a very important statement.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, while all of us in this House—and that was made very clear by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition—take a very serious and responsible attitude towards the security services, which are so vital to the safety of the nation, does the noble Viscount agree that there is very considerable disquiet not only because of the Bettaney case, but also because of the disclosure, if that is the right word, of Cathy Massiter, an employee of MI5 for some 14 years? In the light of our experience over the past months do the Government really think that a quinquennial review of vetting reports is sufficiently frequent?

Lastly, with regard to the report called for by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary specifically from the director general as to his recommendations for dealing with internal complaints and concerns, will the action taken on those recommendations by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary be brought to the attention of Parliament?

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has certainly on these matters always adopted a most responsible attitude. Indeed, there was disquiet, and the other disclosures, together with this one, naturally have led to anxieties. On the question as to whether the quinquennial review is sufficiently frequent, I must say that it would be a matter in the first instance for the director general to report about that to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary, and then for that particular point, as indeed with the others on which he will report, to be considered most carefully by them.

I have said that naturally my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will consider very carefully the views expressed both in another place and here as to the need for a further report to Parliament. I do not think that I can commit her any further at this stage.