---

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

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I had few expectations when I came to it, other than that there would not be a speakers list—so I have sympathy with the noble Lord. I come to this subject without the background which other noble Lords have, and I am ashamed to say that I have never before given particular thought to the role of this committee. I now realise what a difficult job it has, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and his colleagues. I had not realised either how much I would be echoing what other speakers have been saying. Perhaps I might start with a few general words on what, to me, are the first principles of scrutiny—because this is scrutiny, albeit highly specialised. Before I say that, I should declare an interest as joint president of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, which has identified four principles of scrutiny: being a critical friend; challenging executive policy and decision makers; enabling the voice and concerns of the public and their communities to be heard; and that it should be carried out by independent-minded people who lead and own the scrutiny process, and who drive improvement. All of those principles are extremely apt and have been referred to, if not in those words, by pretty much every speaker in today’s debate. Intelligence and security, by its very nature, must be secure, confidential and below the radar, while at the same time reassuring the public. The committee has a role which reflects that, but with particular weight—and this seems to have come out as the debate has gone on—on the public-facing roles of critical friendship, expressing the concerns of the public and, of course, holding the Executive to account. I am not sure that I am entitled to speak for my party on this, but I personally would be enthusiastic about the committee morphing into a Joint Select Committee of Parliament, because the parliamentary role is to hold the Executive to account. Holding to account means shining a light on the Executive, and persuading or requiring them to describe and explain things, which they might prefer not to do. They would thereby be brought into the public arena, which by definition with this subject is particularly difficult. My experience of scrutiny has been domestic and much lower key, but it has included hearing from people affected by the Executive’s actions and decisions. I am interested in comments about the views of the staff of the agencies. Sometimes even refereeing an exchange of views brings a lot of information to the surface and enables one to assess the evidence that one hears. For many years, I have refused to be told something in private that cannot be told in public, so I have particular admiration for those who juggle these responsibilities. I will add to the mix the public’s expectations of technology and of techniques that they think are now close to magic, and of individuals who either act as individuals or, when in a team, have particularly complex personal relationships. There are only a handful of them and they solve every problem, with no obvious back-up, in the space of an hour less seven minutes for commercial breaks. It must make the job really difficult for those who know what it is like at the coal face. I am particularly interested in these perceptions, of which the committee has shown itself to be aware. There has been discussion about the host department. How it looks to the world is important. I see the Government’s point about complicating accountabilities with another department, and it does not seem that the MoJ is the obvious candidate, because it, too, would have a conflict of interest if matters came before the courts, as increasingly they seem to do. The annex to the report suggests to me something that is more stand-alone—we have developed the idea of a parliamentary Select Committee. 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, ""resolved as a matter of priority"." 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 of technology is using the parliamentary system and I am not aware of what is around, I would welcome some fleshing out of that by the Minister. As an individual, I had not noticed that the public were being encouraged to pay attention to it as a matter of general security. 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.