HC Deb 07 July 1999 vol 334 cc535-40W
Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the figures regarding numbers of personal files held by M15 which he gave the House on 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 251–54, differ from those in the 1997–98 Annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee; and whether the MI5 records held in microform are classified within the traffic light system. [89638]

Mr. Straw

The figures given by the Intelligence and Security Committee and those given in my reply on 29 July 1998 to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell),Official Report, columns 251–54, are not incompatible. The Committee's breakdown of figures is different from that in my reply. In my reply, I said that the Security Service held approximately 440,000 files, 290,000 related to individuals who may have been the subject of an inquiry or investigation. The 290,000 was further broken down as: 230,000 closed files; 40,000 microfilmed; and 20,000 active files. In its report, the Committee gave the figures as 250,000 hard copy personal records with a further 40,000 on microfiche. It broke the 250,000 down as: 17,500 Green (ie Active) files; 97,000 Amber; 135,000 Red; and additionally, 3,000 temporary Green (Gens). Any minor variance in the figures is a result of rounding. All Security Service microfilmed records are closed and are categorised as Red in the traffic light system.

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many records from the period 1909 to 1945 it is intended will be retained by MI5 under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958; on what grounds they are to be retained; how many of them are operational records; and what types of operational record they are. [89640]

Mr. Straw

The Security Service is currently engaged in reviewing its records from between 1939 and 1945. It will then begin the process of reviewing records from the inter-war period. The decision whether to keep or to destroy records that are no longer required for operational purposes is taken by the Security Service subject to the guidelines relating to the retention of material for historical purposes. I set out the criteria that are applied when deciding whether a record is likely to be of historical interest in my reply to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on 20 January 1998, Official Report, column 520. The decision as to which records should be released to the Public Record Office is taken by the Service in the light of an assessment of their sensitivity and the need to protect agents and methods of operation. Further information concerning operational records is not made public.

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the release to the Public Record Office of MI5 records from the period 1919 to 1939 will take place;[89639]

(2) what reasons underlie the proposed time scale for the release of post-1945 MI5 records to the Public Record Office.[89641]

Mr. Straw

As I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) on 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 251–54, the Security Service is currently reviewing its files relating to the period 1939–45, for release to the Public Record Office. When this work has been completed the Service will turn to the inter- and post-war years. Progress on this will be determined by the resources available to carry out this work.

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the Government refused the request by the Advisory Council on Public Records in 1998 to be allowed to consider the conditions under which MI5 records are released; and if the Government will review that refusal. [89642]

Mr. Straw

In July 1998, I invited the Advisory Council on Public Records to review the criteria employed by the Security Service to select files for permanent preservation on grounds of historical interest. The Advisory Council reported in December last year. I placed the report in the Library and announced the Government's response in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), 3 February 1999,Official Report, columns 619–20.

During the course of the Advisory Council review the Chairman of the Council wrote to me to ask whether I would be prepared to extend the terms of reference to encompass issues relating to access to Security Service records. I replied that I was not then contemplating changing the arrangements under which external access to Security Service personal files which had not been released to the Public Record Office (PRO) was strictly limited to the Commissioners and Tribunals acting in pursuit of their functions. That remains the position. I did, however, agree that officials of the PRO with the necessary security clearance should be invited to examine files earmarked for destruction following review by the Security Service.

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent of surviving Police Special Branch historical records; and for what reasons retention in Department, under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958, still applies to these records and to those of MI6. [89643]

Mr. Straw

The Public Records Act 1958 applies to the Metropolitan Police Special Branch, but not to Special Branches in other police forces. The inclusion of the Metropolitan Police reflects the relationship that continues to exist between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Metropolitan Police Service.

However, all Special Branches in England, Wales and Scotland operate under the published "Guidelines on Special Branch Work in Great Britain". Paragraph 20 of the Guidelines requires each Special Branch to maintain an effective system for: the identification and destruction of information which can no longer be clearly related to the discharge of its functions".

Because Special Branches need to meet local policing needs—as determined by their respective Chief Constables—as well as assisting the Security Service in carrying out its statutory duty under the Security Service Act 1989, they may need to keep records on individuals who, while ceasing to be of interest to the Security Service, remain of interest in a wider policing context. Decisions on the retention of such records are, therefore, an operational matter for the Chief Constable of the force concerned. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary does, however, reinforce the importance of ensuring that the Guidelines are adopted nationally as the basis for handling personal records.

With respect to the retention of Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) records under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 12 February 1998, Official Report, column 324.

Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the release to the Public Record Office of M15 records from the period 1919 to 1939 will take place; [89625]

(2) what reasons underlie the proposed time scale for the release of post-1945 M15 records to the Public Record Office. [89627]

Mr. Straw

As I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell), 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 251–54, the Security Service is currently reviewing its files relating to the period 1939–45, for release to the Public Record Office. When this work has been completed the Service will turn to the inter- and post-war years. Progress on this will be determined by the resources available to carry out this work.

Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the Government refused the request by the Advisory Council on Public Records in 1998 to be allowed to consider the conditions under which M15 records are released; and if the Government will review that refusal. [89628]

Mr. Straw

In July 1998, I invited the Advisory Council on Public Records to review the criteria employed by the Security Service to select files for permanent preservation on grounds of historical interest. The Advisory Council reported in December last year. I placed the report in the Library and announced the Government's response in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), 3 February 1999,Official Report, columns 619–20.

During the course of the Advisory Council review, the Chairman of the Council wrote to me to ask whether I would be prepared to extend the terms of reference to encompass issues relating to access to Security Service records. I replied that I was not then contemplating changing the arrangements under which external access to Security Service personal files which had not been released to the Public Record Office (PRO) was strictly limited to the Commissioners and Tribunals acting in pursuit of their functions. That remains the position. I did, however, agree that officials of the PRO with the necessary security clearance should be invited to examine files earmarked for destruction following review by the Security Service.

Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the figures regarding numbers of personal files held by M15 which he gave the House on 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 251–54, differ from those in the 1997–98Annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee; and if M15 records held in microform are classified within the traffic light system. [89624]

Mr. Straw

The figures given by the Intelligence and Security Committee and those given in my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell), 29 July 1998, Official Report, columns 251–54, are not incompatible. The Security Committee breakdown of figures is different from that in my reply. In my reply, I said that the Security Service held approximately 440,000 files, 290,000 related to individuals who may have been the subject of an inquiry or investigation. The 290,000 was further broken down as: 230,000 closed files;40,000 microfilmed; and 20,000 active files. In its report, the Committee gave the figures as 250,000 hard copy personal records with a further 40,000 on microfiche. It broke the 250,000 down as: 17,500 Green (ie Active) files; 97,000 Amber; 135,000 Red; and additionally 3,000 temporary Green (Gens). Any minor variance in the figures is a result of rounding. All Security Service microfilmed records are closed and are categorised as Red in the traffic light system.

Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent of the surviving Police Special Branch historical records; and for what reasons retention in Department under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958, still applies to these records and those of M16. [89629]

Mr. Straw

The Public Records Act 1958 applies to the Metropolitan Police Special Branch, but not to Special Branches in other police forces. The inclusion of the Metropolitan Police reflects the relationship that continues to exist between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Metropolitan Police Service.

However, all Special Branches in England, Wales and Scotland operate under the published "Guidelines on Special Branch Work in Great Britain". Paragraph 20 of the Guidelines requires each Special Branch to maintain an effective system for: the identification and destruction of information which can no longer be clearly related to the discharge of its functions".

Because Special Branches need to meet local policing needs—as determined by their respective Chief Constables—as well as assisting the Security Service in carrying out its statutory duty under the Security Service Act 1989, they may need to keep records on individuals who, while ceasing to be of interest to the Security Service, remain of interest in a wider policing context. Decisions on the retention of such records are, therefore, an operational matter for the Chief Constable of the force concerned. Her Majesty' s Inspectorate of Constabulary does, however, reinforce the importance of ensuring that the Guidelines are adopted nationally as the basis for handling personal records.

With respect to the retention of Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) records under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 12 February 1998, Official Report, column 324.

Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many M15 records from the period 1904 to 1945 it is intended will continue to be retained by M15 under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958; on what grounds they are to be retained; how many of them are operational records; and what types of operational record they are. [89626]

Mr. Straw

The Security Service is currently engaged in reviewing its records from between 1939 and 1945. It will then begin the process of reviewing records from the inter-war period. The decision whether to keep or to destroy records that are no longer required for operational purposes is taken by the Security Service subject to the guidelines relating to the retention of material for historical purposes. I set out the criteria that are applied when deciding whether a record is likely to be of historical interest in my reply to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 520. The decision as to which records should be released to the Public Record Office is taken by the Service in the light of an assessment of their sensitivity and the need to protect agents and methods of operation. Further information concerning operational records is not made public.