| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The committee refers to a potential conflict of interest over the budget. The Government say rather defensively in their reply that the committee is well resourced compared with other scrutiny bodies. As I read the report, that was not what the committee was talking about. Perhaps this is the same point: I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate for the committee's budget to be a percentage of the budget of the organisations that it oversees or scrutinises. The committee itself might then have a conflict of interest when it considers the value for money and expenditure of those organisations.
The Government's response to the ISC on some of these points was masterly. Sir Humphrey is alive and well, and passing on his skills. The committee considered that the funding arrangements for information assurance should be,
The Government's response was:
"The Government welcomes the Committee's recognition of the importance of Information Assurance and its support for a new funding model".
As I said, Sir Humphrey is doing jolly well.
Among the most startling points in the latest report were the increases in spend compared with the previous year-an increase of 25 per cent by the Security Service and 57 per cent by the Secret Intelligence Service. We do not know what the base budgets are as this information is redacted, but the rising trend, including into the future-which is reported on-is notable.
I move on from what I might call the infrastructure. Others have been much better placed than me to comment, but it is clear that cybersecurity, the exchange of intelligence and interceptors' evidence are live and developing matters. On cybersecurity, someone of my generation can hardly comprehend the astonishing pace of the development of technology. The Government stress the role of the public-business and individuals-and talk of a collaborative approach. Since my experience
30 Mar 2010 : Column GC549
The exchange of intelligence is a highly political issue that will run and run. The revelations of what went on after the High Court's recent rulings on US intelligence material have brought the matter into the public domain. That is hugely important because of the knock-on effect on public support. It is all a clear reminder that security is in our name and needs public consent. The noble Baroness mentioned intercept as evidence. The Minister's Written Statement last week told us that,
- "the Advisory Group has suggested further, more focused work building on that undertaken previously and intended to establish whether the remaining approaches could be implemented in way that is operationally sustainable and affordable".-[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/10; col. WS 62.]
I suggest that affordability should be considered after sustainability. It should not drive the process although it is hugely important.
I want publicly to thank the Minster and the Home Office for arranging a briefing that I attended a few days ago and which put flesh on the bones of what I had heard. I am encouraged by the statement that despite the difficulties, which I now understand a bit better, the Government have not given up on the issue. I look forward to reading the report that the Minister tells us he has placed in the Library.
I hope from reading the Government's response to the two reports that they are not kicking issues into the long grass. It is sometimes difficult to know how to read some of the language. My noble friend Lord Wallace talked about the committee referring to matters beyond the narrow scope of security. I hope that there can be some public development of debate about the skills required by the agencies, because their ability to recruit those with the necessary skills-in IT and languages, for example-is important. My noble friend did not tell your Lordships whether there are remedial classes in English grammar as well as French grammar. Perhaps they are required.
The closed world of the security services is becoming more open-a Radio 4 programme on GCHQ tonight has been heavily trailed. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, reflected on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mannigham-Buller, about the thankless task undertaken by the staff of the agencies. There cannot be public thanks, except in a generalised way. I echo the noble Lord in saying how glad we are to have this opportunity to thank those staff.
1.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes for opening the debate, as I do others who have spoken today for their informative and incisive points. Before I respond, I, too, should like to express my deep sadness at the death last week of Lady Park. She has given me some very sage advice during my time here, with her specific interest in
30 Mar 2010 : Column GC550
I add my thanks to those already offered to the chairman of the ISC, the right honourable Member for Pontypridd, Dr Kim Howells, who is retiring this year. My noble friend Lord Foulkes spoke highly of his time in the role. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that he has done an excellent job during the past 18 months. I also express my appreciation for the work of other members of the committee who are leaving.
I am grateful to the committee for the reports that it has provided for 2008-09 and 2009-10. They are impressive pieces of work and underline the expertise, rigour and diligence of the ISC. As noted by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in the other place, it is a myth that the security and intelligence agencies are not subject to rigorous scrutiny.
I reject recent criticism of the independence of the ISC in the media and elsewhere. It is a paradox that the secrecy that enables the ISC to carry out its role effectively is also a source of criticism in the media and elsewhere. The fact that the committee is able to have access to highly classified material and freely to question witnesses on the most sensitive issues enables proper oversight of the agencies, whose work is carried out overwhelmingly in secret. There is a balance to be reached between demonstrating that the agencies are subject to robust oversight and allowing them to maintain the confidentiality that allows them to fulfil their statutory role.
We are happy to look at the committee's independence, but as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary also said, these are not the issues that go to the heart of the current debate on intelligence scrutiny. This Administration have a good record on strengthening intelligence scrutiny. Some reforms, such as giving the House of Commons a greater say on the membership of the committee, have been implemented. Others, such as inviting the committee to hold public hearings, have yet to be taken forward-although work on that is ongoing. We need to look at all these issues in the round, which is what the Government are committed to doing with a new committee.
The committee notes that its proposed move to another department-it has suggested the Ministry of Justice-is being blocked by officials. That is not the case. The Government's view is set out in our response to the committee, published in the name of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I make it entirely clear that Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have total confidence in the professionalism and integrity of the Cabinet Office staff who advise us and liaise with the committee. I am not aware of any adviser of the committee having had their career jeopardised, although I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord King, who said that they are sometimes cut off. I shall look into that to make sure that it does not happen, as it would be quite inappropriate.
Noble Lords should be aware that the changes proposed by the committee need to be examined carefully. They go against the normal model for funding and staffing even the most vigorously independent organisations. For example, the staffing and budget of
30 Mar 2010 : Column GC551
Lord Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I may make one point. In the event of a Joint Select Committee of Parliament being set up, there would be no need for a sponsoring department at all.
Lord West of Spithead: I thank my noble friend for that. He pre-empted exactly what I was about to say. Creating a committee of the whole House would avoid this obligation, but would have significant implications. A number of committee members with whom I have spoken were not in favour of this move.
Lord Campbell-Savours: They go native.
Lord West of Spithead: I will not comment on them going native. The Prime Minister is committed to considering further reform in the new Parliament. That is necessary, but we need to think this through carefully, because a number of issues come into play. I reiterate that the Government are committed to publishing as soon as possible our consolidated guidance to personnel on required standards for the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas. That the guidance has not been published does not mean that officers are currently operating in a policy vacuum. Consolidated guidance is based on the principles set out in previous documents. It differs in that it is intended to be applicable to both MoD and agency officers, and aims to set out publicly the responsible and lawful way in which we approach these difficult issues. Our policy across government remains clear. We stand firmly against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. We do not collude in, solicit, or participate in mistreatment. As the ISC has reported, operations have been blocked on the grounds that the risk of mistreatment is too high-this really happens. Careful judgments must be made, and we owe it to the personnel involved to provide clear advice.
I thank the ISC for its review of the draft guidance. Its thorough and insightful report has raised a number of issues that require further and detailed consideration. I regret that this will result in a delay in publication of the guidance, but it is more important to ensure that we deal properly with the important points and get it right than that we rush it through on a self-imposed deadline. These things are too important: we owe it to our agents and to members of the MoD and the Armed Forces who are involved in this arena. Our aim is still to publish the guidance as soon as it is ready, but I do not know exactly when that will be.
30 Mar 2010 : Column GC552
The report before the Committee provides an indication of the range of threats to the United Kingdom's national security, and of the tireless work of the security and intelligence agencies in combating them. Areas highlighted by the report include cybersecurity, which I will come back to in a minute, counterespionage and the continuing threat of Irish-related terrorism, which has been worrying me over the past 18 months. International terrorism remains a key priority for the agencies. That the UK has not suffered a successful international terrorist attack since July 2005 is not down to luck, although I always touch wood and am not in the least complacent: it is a measure of the outstanding efforts by the staff of the agencies and others who played a crucial role in disrupting the plans of those who wished to cause us harm. I am afraid that a number of people wish to do that.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the agencies are able to maintain capabilities commensurate with the threats that we face. As the ISC's latest report makes clear, the single intelligence account was increased by 15 per cent in 2008-09 and by a further 8 per cent in 2009-10. We have not normally allowed to be shown the amount of capital spend-this question was raised by one noble Lord-because if one uses that with other information in the public domain, one can draw conclusions. Perhaps we should look at this more carefully to see if we could expose a bit more. That has always been our rather glib answer. I tried to see it from the point of view of someone looking in, because I was CDI for three years and also director of naval intelligence for three years. Possibly there is scope for doing something here: we need to look at that. I am sure that all noble Lords recognise that these increases are substantial sums and proof of the Government's commitment. As a couple of speakers have said, it is absolutely right that we should have done that, and I thank all speakers for their support for the individuals involved in the agencies who deserve our full support.
Since the publication of the 2009-10 ISC report, the results of further work on the feasibility of allowing intercept as evidence in the UK have been published, following the Privy Council review of January 2008. I welcome the Committee's recognition of the comprehensiveness of the work on this issue, led by the Home Office, which has concluded that none of the approaches identified in the further scoping analysis is capable of meeting both the operational and fair-trial requirements. This conclusion has been supported by the Advisory Group of Privy Counsellors, which includes my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. It remains the Government's desire to find a way to implement intercept as evidence, provided that that does not jeopardise the protection of the public or national security.
The sharing of intelligence with partners-a number of speakers raised this-lies at the heart of the agencies' ability to carry out their work. Huge amounts of information are shared every day on the basis of trust and the assumption that sensitive material will be protected by those who receive it. I share the ISC's concern that the principle of originator control of intelligence material is upheld-a couple of speakers talked about this-and I welcome the Court of Appeal's
30 Mar 2010 : Column GC553
Links with the United States are still good. Do we need to do any more post all this? I think not; things have settled down remarkably. I have had more than 20 years of very close links with people in all the US intelligence agencies-I have grown up with them, in a sense-and I am not unusual in that. There are a lot of us like that, which allows us to have this amazingly close link. I have been very privileged in my career to have gained an insight into the importance of the work of the security and intelligence agencies to our national security and I am second to none in my appreciation of it. Indeed, I was deputy chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee for just over three years, just after the noble Baroness was chairman of it, and chaired a number of meetings.
The staff of the agencies play an invaluable and often unsung role in ensuring our security and safety, as we have said, and I am sure that all in the House, not just in this Committee, will join me in paying tribute to their dedication, resolve and expertise.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes talked about the delay in publication. This was extremely unfortunate. I will not go into when the drafts were received by the Prime Minister, as that would be nit-picking. One could say that this happened and that happened, but that is not important. The important thing is that these things come out in a timely way, and we must ensure that that happens in the future.
As for the SCOPE project, the Cabinet Office is now working with the contractor to resolve issues arising from the termination of the programme. The aim of the work is to ensure that the Government and the taxpayer recover appropriate value from the supplier. The details of the discussions are obviously bound by commercial confidence and have to remain so, so I cannot say more.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes and the noble Baroness talked about cybersecurity and duplication. There is some risk of duplication and cybersecurity because things are moving so quickly. The Office of Cyber Security in the Cabinet Office is looking at all the mechanisms in place that deliver the national cybersecurity strategy, and we are making sure that they are joined up. The office is working very hard. I have put it under immense pressure. It worked right up to Christmas and after, with very little break because we need to deliver stuff now, and we are working very hard on that.
I touched earlier on the Northern Ireland issue, which worries me immensely. About 13 per cent of the security services' resources were allocated to that in 2008-09. The amount went up to 18 per cent in 2009-10, and it is a real concern. One hopes that this will ease as a result of some of the recent political moves, but we need to watch this very carefully.
My noble friend also touched on the loss of laptops. There is no evidence that any of the classified data on them have been compromised. It is likely that most of them were destroyed in GCHQ, but it is quite clear that the accounting controls were not adequate and
30 Mar 2010 : Column GC554
I was asked specifically about the investigator. My right honourable friend David Miliband has written to the committee and said that the Government will be happy to co-operate voluntarily with the investigator if he pursues the two politically non-sensitive topics that it has proposed during the election period, so that will be moving ahead.
Lord King of Bridgwater: Why does it matter what the investigator is tackling? He reports to the committee, and the committee will not be sitting anyway so there will be no risk of a leak. We know that the Government have put an embargo on journalists being out in Afghanistan-is that right?-so we seem to be getting completely neurotic about the ordinary progress of work.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, if the noble Lord is right, I am not aware of the embargo on journalists. It is amazing quite how often leaks happen-that is probably because we do not chop people's legs off enough when they do, but that is another issue-but I slightly share the noble Lord's view. However, that is the letter written by my right honourable friend, and that is where we stand. I am not the Minister responsible for this; it is the Foreign Secretary.
There is no basis for the accusations that the Security Service has withheld documents. The agencies co-operate fully with the ISC, and considerable investment has been made and continues to be made in all our agencies to improve IT and record-keeping systems. A noble Lord raised how extraordinary it was that records should not have been kept correctly. I have to say that after many years being involved in Whitehall, with various government departments and in the MoD, it is definitely not a surprise to me that sometimes they are not kept as well as they should be. That is not an excuse; that should be done better. Some departments, though, in my experience over the past 25 years or so, can occasionally be quite shambolic. We have to get better.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, raised the issue of the fully resilient GCHQ data centre. There is a programme on this tonight, and I will be interested to see if that says anything about it-I have no idea what it is going to say. I will write to the noble Baroness about the detail, if I may; I do not think it is appropriate to go through it here. I know that GCHQ is looking at a number of options, including the increased use of other UK sites and possibly joining in with the Security Service and SIS joint data centre later. That is an option, although there are issues of cost.
I touch again on the cyber threat, which is extremely daunting; in fact, it is horrifying. I became aware of this at the end of the 1990s when I was CDI and started trying to do some work on state-on-state issues, to stop some states doing things. That is quite difficult because of attribution. When I came into this post two and a half years ago, I was intent on ensuring that we did something. We now have a cybersecurity strategy. I want to see CSG more and more linked in through
30 Mar 2010 : Column GC555
The number of attacks on a daily basis on all our systems in this country are mind-boggling, and the state-on-state ones are terrifying in terms of both the skill of some of them and what they achieve, particularly in terms of getting intellectual property rights out of very large UK firms. When it comes to serious organised crime, we see only the tip of the iceberg; we are talking about £50 billion a year globally in terms of the money coming from this. This is a big and current issue, which is why, when I set up the OCS and CSOC, I said, "Let us not look at an IOC or an FOC for you chaps. You are to start working today to resolve this". That is what they are doing on a daily basis-tackling these issues.
It is interesting to look at the Americans, who have their Cyber Czar, Mr Schmidt. I think that they now have nine people working in the west wing on this issue, which is slightly fewer than us in the OCS. They have even greater problems than us but the Americans are always very good, when they finally get to grips with something, at throwing resources at it. We must be locked in so that when they throw those resources we can get a hike-up, and we must be slightly ahead of them to achieve that.
The noble Baroness raised the cross-agency spending review and the joint bid to the Treasury. We are looking at shared services and things like that. It is always amazing how difficult these things seem to be, but it is something that we have to try to achieve.
I could not agree more about analytical capability. When I was Chief of Defence Intelligence, I became aware that because of changes in the Foreign Office, I had the largest group of analysts in the United Kingdom. As the noble Baroness said, that is crucial because we need accurate and clever analysis. I am not sure where the professional head of intelligence analysis, the chairman of the JIC, has got to on a number of these areas. There are areas to do with how open source can be analysed and worked on. I shall write to the noble Baroness on that.
We reported on the National Security Forum on 22 March in the Written Ministerial Statement about the national security strategy. We have done a huge amount of work. I am pleased because it has achieved more than I thought it would. It has done some very valuable work on nuclear issues, energy supply, space security and the defence Green Paper. It gives us a link to IISS, Chatham House, RUSI, academe and the universities and has been very useful. The noble Baroness said that there is confusion over cybersecurity. I do not think there is. I agree that it is highly complex, but we are getting a focus and moving ahead on it. On the national security strategy and the agencies, the agencies, in a sense, take direction on what they are looking at. RFIs help in terms of the work on the national security strategy, but I shall say a little more about that in a minute.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, talked about US rendition flights via Diego Garcia. We reported them as soon as we became aware of them. We had
30 Mar 2010 : Column GC556
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |