§ 3 p.m.
§ Lord MolloyMy 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 Members of both Houses of Parliament will have access to the ombudsman for the security services.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, may I ask the Minister why?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the reason, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on 2nd November, is that a staff counsellor will be available to be consulted by any member of the security and intelligence services who has anxieties relating to the work of his or her service.
§ Lord MishconMy Lords, will the Minister agree that Members of both Houses of Parliament, representing as they do in the lower House the people of this country and in this House the wisdom of this country—
§ Lord Mishcon—could make a contribution that is invaluable and that in any event ought to be their right as public representatives?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Lord is on a slightly different point which has to do with the oversight of the security services. As I explained in our debate in this House on 17th December 1986, we believe that the direct ministerial responsibility which pertains at the moment is the best way to continue.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, is the Minister aware that Members of both Houses of Parliament, as well as many political commentators, think that the creation of such a post would be very worth while? It could possibly prevent a future destabilisation of a democratically elected British government, which is a task that many of us believed to be its primary objective. Do the Government not care that security services might be involved in a possible destabilisation of British governments? Will the creation of the office of ombudsman not help to deter such future behaviour?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord agrees that the creation of the post is worth while. We believe that it will serve a useful purpose for the members of the security and intelligence services. However, it is distinct from and not related to the oversight of the services.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, perhaps I may follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. Does the noble Lord not agree that there is a difference between ministerial scrutiny and parliamentary scrutiny? Is there not a strong case for setting up a committee of Privy Counsellors, for example, to whom the new security ombudsman can report?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, there is indeed a case for what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has suggested. That was put forward in our debate on 17th December. For the reasons which I gave then, we think that the present arrangements are the right way forward.