The Security Service: Parliamentary Control (Hansard, 19 May 1993)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, both services have close oversight by Ministers who are responsible to Parliament. Parliament passed the Security Service Act 1989 providing a framework for that service's work, safeguards against abuse and an avenue for complaints. Legislation to place the secret intelligence service and GCHQ on a statutory basis will give Parliament an opportunity to debate such matters as accountability and oversight.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving me a modicum of justification for my existence on this earth—

Noble Lords
Hear, hear!

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, that has occurred because I have asked a Question on this matter which has at least received a positive Answer from the Government. Is not the Minister aware that, although she is talking in terms of ministerial responsibility, these important services, which render great service to the Crown and to the country, have walked into severe criticism during the past months? Would it not be in their interests to ensure that there is proper democratic control? Furthermore, will the Minister confirm that the Government are completely satisfied that the two services are obeying the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Security Service Act 1989?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join me in saying that the noble Lord has made many good and valuable contributions to our debates—

Noble Lords
Hear, hear!

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I agree with the view expressed recently in another place by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Lord President that ridiculous allegations have been made against the security services. There has been a great deal of media hype which has absolutely no foundation whatever.
The noble Lord was right about the importance of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Security Service Act 1989. Both services are obeying those provisions. I refer the noble Lord and the House to the two reports on the services published at the end of March, which are in the Library of the House.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, is not the dilemma that the only democratic control which is worth tuppence involves publicity and that any full publicity relating to the services would destroy their secret character?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I am sure that when the Bill comes before Parliament we shall find a way of providing an increased amount of supervision, which is what your Lordships' House seeks. However, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble and learned friend that the publicity which the media are so keen to give to any bit of tittle-tattle and to lay that at the door of services which work in the interests of the security of the country is shocking and undermines the services.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, does the Minister agree—

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the light of important responsibilities which have been given to MI5 in dealing with Irish terrorists it is not unreasonable that Parliament should be provided with information in order to judge whether the service is executing those responsibilities 1746 with efficiency and at what cost? I believe that to be a reasonable parliamentary demand and one to which I hope the Government will accede.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I wish to refer the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to the two reports to which I referred. I commend what was said by Sir Thomas Bingham, the Master of the Rolls, in the annual report published on 31st March. He concluded: From time to time stories are published in newspapers describing interception said to have been carried out by GCHQ or by what are usually called MI5 and MI6. Such stories are, in my experience without exception, false". That is an important point always to remember. The noble Lord asked for greater information and referred only to Irish terrorism. I must point out that a great deal of potential terrorism and weapons proliferation threaten us which do not come only from Irish terrorists. The noble Lord should know that the 1993–94 published provision on the Cabinet Office's main estimate for the security and intelligence services is £197 million.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that for several years it has been possible for members of the public to buy sophisticated eavesdropping devices and that the transgressors in recent incidents are probably private persons eager to make money from the newspapers? Does she agree that it is facile, therefore, to assume that MI5, MI6 or GCHQ must be involved and that deliberate bugging should be made unlawful?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I have much sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said. It is true that eavesdropping devices are widely available and can be found in many main street stores in this country, let alone abroad. The most important point is that when the Bill comes before Parliament it will have the opportunity to discuss those services for which the Government are responsible. As regards making eavesdropping and other devices illegal, a great deal of policing will be required; it is not merely a question of passing a law. We must think about the matter most carefully while realising the limitations upon being able to stop such incidents. Our job is to ensure that the security services obey the law as it is written.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the Minister—

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, takes a modest view about his earthly contribution? Aafter all, some years ago he appointed me as an articled clerk. Why are not the Government prepared to consider the issue on a basis far wider than that which the Minister has been contemplating; one which is comparable with that enjoyed in the United States and in a number of EC countries, where there is much greater accountability than that projected by the Government?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will make such comments in detail during the debate which will follow. We are a very different country from the United States of America.