| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: I can entirely refute the possibility, or even the idea, that in the context of the legal regime senior officials will act corruptly, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I see no prospect of that. The senior officials who deal with warrants do so with the utmost integrity. They, too, scrutinise applications with enormous care. The circumstances in which a senior official, rather than the Secretary of State, could authorise a warrant are significant, and can be circumscribed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. Principally, they will arise only when a Secretary of State has already made a decision to intercept in respect of that target.
Mr. Baker: Let me make it clear that I have no evidence of any corruption on the part of any official. I do not impugn any official, nor have I any reason to do so. I am making the entirely philosophical point that if an organisation is controlling and monitoring itself, there is a potential for something to go wrong. I am always interested in any aspect of our work here involving
intrusion on someone's liberty or privacy, and I feel that there is a good reason for there to be an external check. That is the only point that I am making, but it was helpful to hear the Home Secretary's comments.I am worried about the fact that, on occasion, information that conveys details about an individual, perhaps to a large degree, is not even subject to the warrant-seeking process. I understand that it is possible for information to be gleaned about telephone calls made by an individual without any requirement for warrants--for example, information about the number of calls made, the telephone numbers to which they are made, and how long the calls last. Such information can build up a picture of an individual's activities, even if the words spoken are not recorded. I understand that the same will shortly be possible with e-mails and other electronic communication; it will be possible to establish the sites visited, for how long they have been visited, and so on.
As I am not a member of the Committee, I hope that Ministers will allow me to raise the issue of the Government's policy on interceptions or monitoring of Members of Parliament--elected Members. This is really a constitutional issue. On 30 October 1997, a parliamentary answer given to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who is no longer present, confirmed that the Government's policy on the interception of Members' communications was as stated in 1966 by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. Nothing had changed. The answer was that no interception would take place.
I ask, in a genuine spirit of seeking information from the Government, how that squares with the various reports that appear to point in the contrary direction--reports that have appeared intermittently, almost regularly, in our national newspapers, often in respected national newspapers.
The Sunday Times of 15 November 1998 said that, allegedly, MI5 warned the Prime Minister about the activities of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). The Guardian reported in a front-page story on 22 October 1998:
- Potential cabinet Ministers and other members of the Government were vetted by MI5 at the last two general elections, it was officially admitted yesterday.
The names of individuals who the intelligence agency considers security risks were passed to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Baker: Perhaps it is quite right. I am not making the point that that should never occur. The point that I am making is that it appears to be inconsistent with the information given in parliamentary written answers.
Mr. Mates: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but it is important that we get this right. Vetting means positively looking at someone's security classification. The loose terminology of the newspaper simply means that the Security Service--probably the head of the Security Service--reported to the Prime Minister on any Members upon whom it had information of anything untoward. That does not mean that the Member's communications had been interfered with. It means that the Member had come to the notice of the Security Service. That is quite a different matter from vetting.
Mr. Baker: I understand that point entirely, but I was making a wider point. An article in The Mirror alleged--
I have no evidence for this; I quote just because of a desire for knowledge--that MI5 phone taps and checks were ordered on a particular Member of Parliament who was branded a blackmail risk.I do not know whether that occurs or not, but it would be helpful to know to what extent there is interception of any communications, surveillance, vetting or anything else involving Members. What general rules apply? What parameters apply in those respects? That is the question that I am asking the Foreign Secretary to address in his winding-up speech. What are the parameters and limits to which gathering information about Members of Parliament can extend? I ask no more than that.
Also on accountability, another area in which there could be greater openness is the finances of the security services. On 15 December 1998, I asked the Prime Minister to publish the National Audit Office report into the new headquarters for MI5 and MI6, a matter that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to earlier. The answer from the Prime Minister was that disclosure would harm national security or defence.
That is contrary to paragraph 43 of the Intelligence and Security Committee report, which states:
- We were surprised that the reports had not been previously published, and the Committee believe that these NAO reports should be published. We believe that publication would not in any way prejudice national security or compromise commercial confidentialities.
The record shows that the budget for those buildings was about three and a half times overspent. Had there been more involvement and more openness about those issues, and perhaps more involvement by the Intelligence and Security Committee, that might not have happened. Further to that, what steps are being taken, and how open are the Government being in ensuring that the GCHQ building does not fall into the same trap as Thames house and Vauxhall cross?
As for openness about finances, I fail to see why the Government insist that they cannot publish a separate budget head for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. There is a separate budget head for MI5; it is in some of the booklets. It may look as if it is a secret, but it is in there somewhere. It is also included in the single intelligence vote.
What on earth is wrong with our knowing the total amount spent on MI6 or GCHQ, and even perhaps, without endangering national security, some sort of crude breakdown within that figure? In my view, the attitude is a throwback to the era of obsessive secrecy which should be over. I hope that the Government will look again at that in the months ahead.
I am not asking for radical change. I am grateful, in so far as I am aware of it, for the work that the security services do to protect us all. I am also grateful for the work of the Security and Intelligence Committee on behalf of parliamentarians, in so far as I can ascertain what it does from its reports and elsewhere, and I have confidence in its work. I believe that it has shown that it
can deal with security matters in a responsible way, and that Parliament and the security services can be more open about the work that they undertake without in any way endangering national security.That may require a Select Committee, as hon. Members have argued this afternoon, or it may require rejigging the existing Committee. It will certainly involve more access to information from the Committee and more openness about advice to Ministers and the availability of such advice to members of the Committee. This is a relatively modest shopping list, but I hope that it is a sensible one and that the Government will respond accordingly when the Foreign Secretary replies to the debate.
5.47 pm
Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham): As one would expect, we have had a very good debate. It has been serious, thoughtful, well-informed and devoid of the spirit of partisanship that sometimes prevails in this place. I have been in the Chamber for most of the debate, and much of it has been not so much about the exercise of the accountability which these relatively new arrangements still amount to, but about how we might extend that accountability. I shall say a little about that, but it is proper that at this stage we should devote our attention to exercising accountability rather than seeking constantly to extend it.
All the speeches have been well informed and serious and the House will have appreciated that. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke with sanity and in a considered way. Let me also say that we all felt deeply for him in his recent sadness. We are very glad to have him here and to hear his sane voice.
I should also mention the speech by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I am sorry that he is not in his place, but he has been here throughout nearly all the debate. He spoke of this being his last opportunity to speak in a debate on this topic, which suggests that he may know rather more about the date of the election than the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |