| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Allason: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, on Second Reading, the Minister said that there was excess capacity in the Security Service and that that was part of the reason why the Bill had been introduced. Thehon. Gentleman is now demanding extra vigilance and asking for more officers to be deployed in the task of counter-terrorism. Does he think it appropriate that, within a few days of a bomb going off at Canary wharf, the public are told that the Security Service has excess capacity? Surely the events of the past few days demonstrate that, if there are people in Thames house who are twiddling their thumbs, there is an obvious job for them to do.
Mr. Straw: I cannot recall every last word that the Secretary of State uttered on Second Reading on10 January. I do not recall his using the phrase "excess capacity"--
Mr. Allason: It was the Minister of State.
5.15 pm
Mr. Straw: I do not recall the Minister of State using the phrase. The record will prove which of our recollections is correct. In any event, there is no argument between us on the next point. As a result not only of the ceasefire--temporary as it has turned out--by the Provisional IRA, but of more profound, long-term changes that have occurred in eastern Europe, it seemed that there might be some resources within the Security Service that could be available for the pursuit of organised crime and in support of the police and other law enforcement agencies.
The Bill is, of course, founded on the fact that, contingent on the work of the Provisional IRA, in the medium term there is the prospect of stability in Northern
Ireland and thus a serious judgment can be made about winding down some of the anti-terrorist work of the Security Service. Palpably, that judgment cannot be made today. If the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) reads the debates of 10 January, he will see that Ministers and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen made the point that we did not know whether the ceasefire was temporary or permanent. It was always anticipated that the attitude of the Provisional IRA would be crucial.
In the debate on new clause 1, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke about three prisoners who are in Edinburgh prison for running arms and with whom he has had dealings. It was not clear from what he said whether the men had been convicted of a terrorist offence; they had certainly been convicted of a weapons offence. As my hon. Friend implied, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made clear, in the real world, the dividing line between organised crime and terrorism is difficult to define. We have supported the principle behind the Bill. If there is--this is the phrase used by thehon. Member for Torbay, not mine--excess capacity in the Security Service, it is sensible for it to be deployed in the pursuit of organised crime.
Time is short, given that there is another debate on a separate issue that has to be taken before 10 pm. The Second Reading debate reflected concern across the Chamber that, as the Security Service is to move into a new area of activity, there should be robust arrangements for its accountability. We were assisted in that debate by the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which was important in flagging up some of the issues.
We have tabled the new clause to provide an opportunity for the Secretary of State to recognise that it is important that, as the Security Service moves into a new area, the public should be reassured that the service is working as Ministers and Parliament intend. I hope that the Intelligence and Security Committee will produce an early report, once the new work is under way, in which it will discuss its views about how the work has been undertaken.
The new clause also concerns the power of the Prime Minister essentially to censor parts of a report that is produced by the Committee and intended for the eyes of Members of Parliament. All of us understand that there has to be some such mechanism when a scrutiny Committee deals with the work of the intelligence and security services, but I should be glad if the Secretary of State would give an assurance that, although it may sometimes be necessary for operational details that have somehow crept into the draft of the Committee's report to be excised from the public record, Ministers or the Prime Minister do not intend that the Committee's views and judgments about the Security Service's overall work should be the subject of amendment or deletion by Prime Minister.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
I regret that Scottish business made it impossible for me to participate, as I might have wished, in the Committee that considered the Bill. Hon. Members who did not go through the heat of the day in Committee have an obligation to be succinct, so I should simply like to ask the Home Secretary the following.
It is not clear to me--perhaps it should be--what the arrangements would be, if the Security Service were used to combat organised crime, in relation to its personnel
appearing in court. It is unfair to ask the Secretary of State whether there are any differences between Scotland and England, but perhaps he could ask his Scottish Office colleagues to write to me if any differences exist in the procedures of Scottish courts.
There is a problem, with which I am sure he is all too familiar, of people operating for the service being unable, by the very nature of their role in the service, to be cross-examined in court, as would happen to other witnesses. I leave it at that.
Mr. Winnick:
It would be strange if, when debating the Bill, we did not refer, as we have for obvious reasons, to the tragedy that occurred last Friday. I do not recall precisely what the Home Secretary said on Second Reading about MI5's position as a result of the lack--fortunately--of terrorist activity since the ceasefire started, but clearly the position is different now. The House does not know whether there will be more terrorist attacks. We are in the dark, and that is all the more reason why the Security Service should be using all its skills and resources--I am sure that it is--to analyse intelligence and, as far as possible, to give the necessary warnings to the Government about the possibility of future terrorist attacks. That is bound to be MI5's main role.
New clause 5, also, touches on a subject that is sensitive for Parliament. We are dealing with accountability which, inevitably, we discussed on Second Reading and in Committee. I have long taken the view that, for all the Security Service's importance and sensitivity, we should try as far as possible, as happens in other western democracies, to make its work accountable to parliamentary scrutiny. That does not of course include on-going operations--no one suggests that, certainly not me--but there should be a degree of accountability.
To the people who say that some progress has been made by setting up the Intelligence and Security Committee that reports to the Prime Minister, I would say that it is progress, but limited. The situation is different from that in which I and other hon. Members raised the subject in the early 1980s. The Committee consists of parliamentarians who are able to consider various aspects of the intelligence service. It would be wrong of me--however much I believe that parliamentary scrutiny to be limited--simply to write it off. When the Bill was before us, I accepted that it was a form of progress and that it was better than nothing. I said that before the Minister of State was involved.
The Intelligence and Security Committee is not in any sense a Select Committee. It does not report directly to Parliament. It reports only to the Prime Minister, who decides whether certain parts of its report should be deleted before being presented to Parliament. The Committee meets not in a parliamentary building, but in the Cabinet Office. It is officered not by any of the Clerks, but by an official from the Cabinet Office. Undoubtedly, a difference therefore exists between the accountability that we have under the Select Committee system and that under this Committee.
I apologise for missing the first few minutes of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). We are saying that the added powers that the Bill gives to MI5--those on crime prevention--should be subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny as the police's work.
As I reminded the Committee that considered the Bill, when I served on the Select Committee on Home Affairs from 1979 to 1983, I suggested, and the Conservative majority agreed, which was surprising, that the Select Committee should consider the special branch's work. There was uproar at the time. People outside the Committee, including the then Home Secretary, said that we were undermining the Security Service, which worked closely with special branch, but lo and behold, we considered special branch's work, heard evidence from the police, the Home Secretary and some critics and published a majority-minority report. Special branch continues and, to the best of my knowledge, the Security Service was in no way undermined.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |