HL Deb 11 May 1987 vol 487 cc420-2

2.53 p.m.

Lord Molloy

My 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 consider establishing a body to review the work and methods of the security service and to report regularly to Parliament.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, your Lordships debated these matters on 17th December last year. The security service operates under a directive issued by the then Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, in 1952. The directive makes the Director-General personally responsible to the Home Secretary, and through him to the Prime Minister. Those principles have applied to all previous governments since 1952.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is he not aware that during the past week or so there have been disturbing reports of efforts by the security service to discredit Mr. Edward Heath?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I think that it would be wrong for me to add anything to the Statement made by noble friend the Leader of the House last week.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the whole thing is becoming a farce? Would he care to tell me why the Government have taken out writs for contempt of court against three centre-view newspapers, the Observer, the Guardian and the Independent, while Independent Television News gave a verbatim account from Mr. Wright's book on 27th April but is not being prosecuted? Counsel for the Attorney-General said that they could not possibly prosecute 30 or 40 institutions or people so they had to pick three. Is it justice to let some off and prosecute others?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord refers to proceedings that my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has instituted. Those proceedings are sub judice and though the noble Lord can comment on them, I cannot.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, does the noble Earl recollect that in the debate on security matters and the overseeing of them the suggestion was made that the Security Commission, possibly strengthened by the appointment of a judge at first instance, might indeed take on the supervision of the security service and in its wisdom report to Parliament? Has that suggestion been looked into and, if not, will it be?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that, following the debate last year, I discussed the debate and the point which he has just raised with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

Lord Mishcon

With what result, my Lords?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, my right honourable friend was very interested and sought to consider the matter further.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, if we had some kind of independent body which was instructed to bear in mind how valuable the security service is and that it should not be endangered, but which could nevertheless examine its structure, management and staff counselling, this would be in the interests of the security service itself? It might possibly avert some of the appalling stories that the British public have been reading over the past few weeks. It is no good the Minister telling me that he is quite satisfied that there is nothing to be alarmed about; he must tell us what kind of examination took place that made the Government confident that there is nothing to worry about.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, as I have already said to the noble Lord, I shall not comment further on matters that were discussed when my noble friend the Leader of the House made a Statement last week. I remind the noble Lord of two points because I cannot remember whether he took part in the debate last year. If we elaborate the handling of security matters, two obvious dangers may arise. The first is that by unduly widening the information generally available we prejudice the secrecy necessary for effective security service operations; secondly, by creating a new structure we blur the responsibility and detract from essential accountability to Parliament as a whole.

Lord Diamond

My Lords, is it not the case that the circumstances which led to the Leader of the House repeating the Answer to a Private Notice Question in the other place have shown that matters have developed and that public opinion is very disturbed indeed about the condition of the security service? Is it not the case that all of us want to see the security service well-maintained and kept in a high state of morale, which is far from being the case at the moment? Will the Minister therefore reconsider whether his somewhat dismissive answer is appropriate in today's circumstances?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the director-general reported to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. She was convinced by what the director-general said and accepted that advice. The leader of the noble Lord's party, Dr. David Owen, accepted the director-general's advice in these circumstances. Surely the best thing that we can do is not to aggravate these rumours but to let the security service get on with doing the job that it does so very well and for which we are grateful.