| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: I shall try to be as gentle with the right hon. Lady as I can, but the simple truth is that as soon as the matter broke, she reached conclusions about it. She says that they are correct, but they are not supported in any particular by the conclusions of the Intelligence and Security Committee. She concluded that there had been a major lapse by current serving Ministers. There had been lapses, but not by Ministers. If there had been lapses by Ministers, I would hope and expect that members of the Committee would have said so, and said so publicly. They did not.
It is a matter of record, and is stated in paragraph 64 of the report, that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was told on 22 March 1999 that the
- Security Service are clearing the detail contained in those chapters . . . with the Home Secretary (who was briefed on the project in 1998, and is supportive) and the Attorney General.
If there is a next time--we always learn from experience, but we cannot avoid such things--I suggest that the right hon. Lady does not make such intemperate statements as the one she published on 13 September, in which she stated that I must publish the legal advice that I claim makes a prosecution impossible and explain why I kept it secret from Parliament and the public for more than eight months.
If the right hon. Lady is suggesting that, as a matter of Opposition policy, she is now committed to publishing the legal advice available from the Law Officers in every case, or in any, she had better say so now, because a
fundamental aspect of the work of the Law Officers is that their advice to Ministers is never published. Government could scarcely operate if it were.
Miss Widdecombe: That is a fascinating defence to accusations that I have not even made. I quoted direct from the Intelligence and Security Committee report. I am very sorry indeed that the right hon. Gentleman did not realise that, but I shall not weary the House by quoting it again. He will find that I quoted specific paragraphs about the utter failure of co-ordination between Departments. If he takes that personally, perhaps there are reasons. I do not know about that, but I do know that every criticism that I have just made has been made in a report praised by both sides of the House as an extremely thorough piece of work.
The right hon. Gentleman may also recall that the final announcement of the decision not to prosecute Melita Norwood was not made to the House, but leaked to the media half an hour before the answer was laid, for which an apology had to be made. Not for a moment can he try to pretend that the handling of this issue--by politicians, by officials or by the various services concerned--has been all that it might have been. Very generously, I noted that the Government have agreed to put in place measures to try to rectify the deficiencies, and hoped that those measures would be effective.
On another aspect of the work of the security services, there is widespread concern at the intention of the former director general, Dame Stella Rimington, to publish her memoirs. It is vital that the men and women who work for our security and intelligence services can feel utterly secure in the knowledge that they and their work will never be compromised by the publication of such books. I hope that the Government will take those concerns into consideration. In his winding-up speech, will the Foreign Secretary tell us more about the Government's intentions, and, perhaps, what stages have been reached in the clearance process?
We were all shocked, and, I believe, deeply disgusted, bearing in mind the origin of the tragedy, by the death of the 58 illegal immigrants in Dover on Monday. Both sides of the House condemn the organised criminal racketeers who feed off human misery and suffering. The introduction to the Committee's report covering 1998-99, which we are debating, stated that there had been "no improvement" in the fight against the traffic in illegal immigrants, and added:
- Rather the reverse has occurred . . .
Another issue raised in the annual report, and one that the Government did not fully address in their response, was resources. The head of the Secret Intelligence Service and the Director General of the Security Service both voiced their concerns about the 2001-02 financial year, saying that the position would be challenging, and flagging up the possibility of being unable to maintain current service levels and meet new challenges.
- We believe that these concerns should be fully addressed as a matter of some urgency.
-
That must be especially true, given the Foreign Secretary's remark about the security services during the debate in 1998:
If they are to do their job, they must have confidence that they will be resourced to fulfil the tasks that we place on them.--[Official Report, 2 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 583.]
- We are not convinced that enough effort is being focused at stopping the drugs reaching the UK.
I cannot resist observing that I hope that the Government are taking seriously the problem of missing laptop computers, which has come to light in recent months. We have heard of instances of laptops belonging to members of the security and intelligence services going missing or being stolen in what can be described only as bizarre circumstances. We have had to listen to stories of tapas bars, taxis and train stations. I shall be grateful if the Government will clarify the truth of this when they respond, and tell us exactly how many laptops have been lost in recent months by members of the security and intelligence services, and, so far as they can tell us, in what circumstances.
Will the Government at least confirm that no classified or sensitive information has been lost as a result of the adventures with laptops? I hope that measures have been put in place across the services to prevent a recurrence of incidents that make the services look remarkably foolish.
Over the past year and a half, the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Foreign Affairs have both produced reports that have made a valuable contribution to on-going debates. Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends will no doubt wish to refer to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on the Sierra Leone affair in greater detail than I shall, but the cover-up climate that surrounds the issue means that questions will inevitably have to be asked, and it is only right that they should be.
For example, will the Foreign Secretary indicate, in more detail than hitherto, his reasons for refusing the Select Committee informal access to the head of the Secret Intelligence Service? How does that differ from the arrangements that the Home Secretary makes in respect of the security services, and why?
Will the Foreign Secretary also comment on the Committee's conclusion that his refusal to allow it access to the head of the SIS has inhibited its inquiry? Perhaps that is what the right hon. Member for Berwick- upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, had in mind. What does the Foreign Secretary have to say about the personal criticism of Foreign Office policy, as opposed to the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, that appears in paragraph 108 of the report?
That brings me to the issue of accountability, on which the Select Committee on Home Affairs has produced a report. As I have already said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and the other members of the Intelligence and Security Committee do an excellent job. There is no greater testament to that than the thorough investigation into the Mitrokhin affair. In so far as one can draw such conclusions relatively early in its existence, the Committee is clearly doing its job supremely well.
The Government now see no reason to change the present arrangements. The Opposition agree with that view, as do the majority of the Committee. It is a unique Committee which scrutinises a unique and very sensitive area of the Executive. All sides of the debate agree that its establishment was a significant step forward.
The arrangements put in place by the previous Government are not yet even a decade old. I note the Home Secretary's comments in evidence to the Select Committee that the current arrangements should have time to bed down. When we are talking about institutions with histories much longer than that, I do not think that four or five years can possibly provide a proper evaluation of the new system.
The country's intelligence and security services do a vital job in safeguarding the nation during the increasingly uncertain and violent times in which we live. They, and men and women such as Vasili Mitrokhin, are all too often the unsung heros. Once again, I pay tribute to them, their good work and those who oversee them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |