---

Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report for 2008–09 (Cm 7807)

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 intelligence. She was an amazing woman, and her good humour and deep knowledge of intelligence and security will be much missed. 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 the Supreme Court sits with the MoJ. This reflects the normal constitutional position whereby independent bodies are linked to the department or institution responsible for the policy area that they supervise, providing a shared understanding of the area, access to a pool of suitable staff and clear lines of accountability. No one would say that the Supreme Court is a patsy for anyone who is trying to run it. Breaking this principle and adding another Secretary of State to the chain, rather than having the Cabinet Office reporting directly to the Prime Minister on intelligence, has to be considered very carefully. The MoJ shares these reservations—as, clearly, do the noble Lord, Lord King, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.