Security and Intelligence Services (Hansard, 2 December 1992)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, it has been the policy of successive governments not to comment on matters relating to the operation of the security and intelligence agencies.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer, which can hardly be regarded as either surprising or satisfactory. However, it does not conform with the Prime Minister's statement of 6th May 1992 that: We will sweep away many of the cobwebs of secrecy which needlessly veil too much of government business". He then asked his right honourable friend the Chancellor to identify other areas where there may be excessive secrecy. Is not this an area where excessive secrecy exists which has nothing directly to reveal about operational matters? Will the Minister agree that it is obvious that with the collapse of the Soviet empire some drop in the budget for the security services must follow? Is it not reasonable for those of us who have to pay for these security services to know the order of reduction which has been made?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, just as my right 1341 honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his statement on 6th May, that the security services have a continuing role in providing foreign intelligence and overseas support in furtherance of the Government's foreign, defence, security and economic policies. That continuing role in the protection of our national security is extremely important. I cite one clear piece of evidence for this and that is the contribution which they can make in the fight against this awful terrorism with which the world is still plagued.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the collapse of communism, as the Question put it, has in no way removed the dangers that seem to have followed in the wake of that collapse? Things are as disturbed, difficult and dangerous as ever they were.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, my noble friend is right. I can assure him that we shall make sure that the budgets of the security and intelligence agencies are subjected to detailed scrutiny at all times. But there is no way in which any responsible government should let up in their fight against terrorism in this uncertain and unstable world. Good and timely intelligence is essential to deal with the threats and challenges which face us.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, for purely security reasons, the Minister may not be able to comment in any detail on the role of the security services. However, when giving consideration to the subject matter of the noble Lord's Question, will she bear in mind that at the present time there are ominous signs of the growth of fascism in Europe, partly due to the fragmentation of the old communist empire and partly because of mass unemployment? Will she take steps to ensure, without necessarily commenting publicly upon them now, that the security services are purged of some of the obsolete ideologies that they themselves held and address themselves to the menace of fascism?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I am quite certain that everyone in this House, in another place and in the whole security service will address themselves forcefully to the evils of fascism. However, I shall note what the noble Lord has said, and I shall make sure that it is seen by those who should see what he has said.

§ Lord Jenkins of Hillhead
My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that it is increasingly my conviction, having twice been nominally in charge of MI5, that the security services in several fields cause more trouble than they are worth? In my experience, they occupied far more of Ministers' time with their own internecine quarrels than with any effective information which they provided. Is the noble Baroness aware that my advice to any new Minister in a sensitive department would be never to sign automatically anything coming up from the security services, and to be pretty cautious about signing it at all? In those circumstances, would it not be reasonable that the security services should be subject to normal financial stringency?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has just said. I am always a cautious person and I shall be cautious in replying to the noble Lord and simply say to him that I am sure that for all his experience, others have experience which is contrary to that.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, does not the Minister agree that at a time when we are moving from a single monolithic threat to our security to a world of multiple threats and multiple dangers, and at a time when we are reducing our own military establishment, this would be the most foolish time of all to start to reduce the amount of resources which we devote to our intelligence and security services?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is right. We must consider with the greatest care where we can make reductions or where we may not be able to make reductions but where we have to do more work, in particular on counter-terrorism.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure she is—that there is a widespread and I believe increasing feeling in many parts of the country that while secrecy is extremely important in the operation of the security services, it has perhaps become a little too all-pervading? Can the noble Baroness tell us whether there are any plans for the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who scrutinises the activities of the secret services, to make an annual report which could be debated in Parliament; and, if not, what proposals do the Government have for giving the British public more information about what is done in their name, and indeed for which they pay?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the right time for a discussion of this matter is when we bring the Bill before your Lordships' House. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, knows, that is planned for this Session of Parliament. I would simply say that the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee made it quite clear in another place on 27th January 1987 that the Comptroller and Auditor-General would consult with him about the handling of highly classified projects within the Public Accounts Committee. We can debate the exact manner in which this is done, as the noble Lord has indicated just now.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, if we are to have the information the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, requires us to have, would it not save money and add to public enjoyment if it could be edited and written by John le Carre and sold to defray costs?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, what a wonderful idea!

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the only time the security forces have agreed with each other is when they were trying to unseat the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, when he was the Prime Minister of this country? That is about the measure of their uselessness. I believe this is the first 1343 time in history—or at least in recent history—that I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.