---

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

My Lords, my reply can be very brief for a number of reasons: first, because I spoke for rather longer in my opening speech than I had intended; and, secondly, because the Minister’s reply was expert and comprehensive and dealt with most of the points. This debate has indicated the wisdom of the Government’s decision to have debates on the committee’s annual report. This is the second one we have had here and there have been two in the other place. This is new and reflects the way in which the committee and public scrutiny have developed. It is a very welcome step. I am only sorry that the speech of my good friend Lord Campbell-Savours was cut short because of the conventions of Grand Committee. I am sure that he will never let that happen again. I certainly would not wish it to happen again. This has been a very good debate. I was rather disconcerted to find myself agreeing with so much of what the opposition spokesman, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said. There were only a couple of points that I disagreed with. The Minister will be pleased to hear that perhaps I am returning to type. She described what was happening in the intelligence area as reflecting uncertainty and muddling along. That is the wrong impression. There have been some little local difficulties as far as the committee and the Government are concerned, but it is wrong to give the impression that she did. In terms of security, the agencies are working tremendously hard. There is a clear policy and, as the Minister said, things have improved substantially in the past few years. The other point on which I disagreed with the noble Baroness was when she questioned the finances. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, generously and correctly made clear, the increase in the single intelligence account has been remarkably large—other departments would have loved to have it—and rightly so given the threats. That point needs to be repeated. I do not want to say anything about cybersecurity because the Minister dealt with it extremely well. A number of noble Lords referred to intercept as evidence. The committee, which has looked at this again and again in great detail, remains unconvinced that using intercept as evidence would make a useful contribution to securing successful prosecutions. Our main concern as a committee was that the interception capabilities of the intelligence agencies were not damaged by any move towards making interception material admissible. We are not surprised that the legal model of interception as evidence which was designed and tested is not viable, and certainly welcome what the Government have done in relation to that. There was a call for judge-led inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord King, will know as well as I do, if not better, that there is an Investigatory Powers Tribunal that is little known about and little used. It can carry out investigations in individual cases, which we are not able to do, because we look at the policy. I advise all Members and people beyond this House to look at the role, nature and constitution of that tribunal to see whether it can be used in some of the cases mentioned. The Minister was slightly hesitant on whether it was a generous step forward by the Foreign Secretary to agree to our investigator doing the two pieces of work during the Recess; I welcome it. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord King, made, but it is an acceptance of the principle, and we or our successors can make sure that it is strengthened and reinforced when we come back. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was kind and generous about the work being done by the committee and was concerned about my level of activity. I say to him that the committee has effectively met every Tuesday when the Houses are sitting. Fortunately, the Scottish Parliament sits on Wednesday and Thursday, which makes life a lot easier. There has been a groundswell of opinion from both sides of the House that there needs to be a fundamental change in the nature of our committee. That has been discussed by the committee. We understand the pros and cons. I understand the comments made from both government and opposition Members that moving to the Ministry of Justice may be tinkering with the set-up and is not the fundamental and necessary change. When an opinion comes from both the noble Lord, Lord King, and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, everyone needs to take account of it; it is not often that they agree on these kind of things. I am sure that they also agree that the matter needs to be looked at carefully, to see exactly how it would work, to make sure that secrets were preserved when that was vital, and to make sure that the composition of the committee was appropriate; I go no further than that. I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord King, said in relation to more Members from this House, whatever the structure. I find it difficult being the only such Member. It is wrong that there be only one Member from this House, on something on which we and the other place are both interested. Whatever changes take place—whatever the structure, whether the committee is parliamentary or continues to report to the Prime Minister—I hope that whoever is in government will make sure that this House is better represented. I also carefully noted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord King, that, in the unlikely event of a Conservative Government, the chair should be from the then Opposition. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and I would take every opportunity of returning to that, if it were to happen. This has been an extremely helpful debate. The level of information from people participating in it shows how valuable this House is in the question of scrutiny of intelligence and reinforces what the noble Lord, Lord King, said—that it should be better represented in the committee. I look forward to taking part in the debate in future years, in whatever capacity. Motion agreed.