May I ask the right hon. Lady to give the House the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 26 JUNE—Motion relating to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, followed by the remaining stages of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY 27 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Learning and Skills Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY 28 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Limited Liability Partnership Bill [Lords], followed by the remaining stages of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.

THURSDAY 29 JUNE—Opposition Day [15th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on "Priorities in the NHS" on an Opposition motion.

FRIDAY 30 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

MONDAY 3 JULY—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion whose subject is to be announced.

TUESDAY 4 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Local Government Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY 5 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Local Government Bill [Lords]. The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.

THURSDAY 6 JULY—Estimates Day [2nd Allotted Day]. At 7 o'clock, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

FRIDAY 7 JULY—Debate on the report of the Committee of Inquiry into hunting with dogs in England and Wales on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

I should also like to inform the House of business to be taken in Westminster Hall during July.

THURSDAY 6 JULY—Debate on the development of Community Legal Services.

THURSDAY 13 JULY—Debate on EC development assistance.

THURSDAY 20 AND THURSDAY 27 JULY—Debates on Select Committee reports are scheduled, both subjects to be announced.

The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week.

The House was hoping for the date of the summer recess, not least because it was hinted at by one of the right hon. Lady's ministerial colleagues in a speech in Westminster Hall yesterday.

In the Queen's Speech, it was announced that legislation would be introduced to improve the education of children with special educational needs. As the parliamentary Session matures, what has happened to that Bill and, indeed, to the Disqualifications Bill, which the House dealt with, at some inconvenience, in January and which has subsequently sunk without trace? Is that not further evidence of a badly managed legislative programme?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the Government would produce a plan in the next few days to strengthen the post office network. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that that will be outlined in an oral statement, given the widespread concern about the matter? In villages in my constituency, fashionable addresses such as the old rectory and the old school house are now being joined by the old post office.

Before the House rises for the summer recess, will we have the third of the three armed forces debates, this one on procurement, given widespread concern about redundances at British Aerospace? Would it be reasonable to assume that the Chancellor will be making his statement on the comprehensive spending review in the second of the two weeks? What has happened to the arrangements for discussing the economy?

Following our exchange last week, when there was widespread support for a public holiday to commemorate the 100th birthday of the Queen Mother, has the right hon. Lady had the promised discussion with the Home Secretary?

I should have liked to be able to give the recess date today, and I apologise that I am not able to do so. I said some time ago that I hoped that the House would not need to sit in August, and that hope has strengthened. That is all I can tell the right hon. Gentleman today.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the debate on special educational needs. I am aware that that matter is being considered. He will know that since the Bill was first proposed, there has been a pertinent, relevant, but unfortunately rather late further report about disability, which my right hon. Friend is considering alongside earlier proposals.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Disqualifications Bill. The Session is not yet at an end, and the Bill has had some hearing in the House. If I recall correctly, it had an extensive hearing.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me also about the Post Office. I anticipate that when proposals for the Post Office come forward, there is likely to be an oral statement. As for his reference to the address, the old post office, no doubt in rural areas like the one he represents there are already such addresses—so many post offices closed under the Government of whom he was such a star member.

As for the armed forces debate, I am aware of the pressure last week in the context of British Aerospace. I cannot announce a debate in Government time, but I have announced a number of opportunities in Opposition time, for which Conservative Members can press their right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope and anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to make a statement about the comprehensive spending review in the not too distant future.

As for whether there should be a holiday to celebrate the Queen Mother's birthday, I undertook last week to raise the matter with the relevant authorities, and have done so.

I wonder whether we could have an opportunity soon to discuss the work of the Modernisation Committee and the hours of the House. Many of us had hoped that we would be able to discuss these matters and come to conclusions before the end of the Session; I had hoped that we might hear some news today.

The matter remains under discussion in the Modernisation Committee. It is my hope that in the not too distant future the Committee may have reached conclusions that it is in a position to lay before the House in a report. I cannot, of course, anticipate the judgment of the Committee. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Session does not end until the autumn.

Bearing in mind the rather strange sequence of events surrounding Question 12 in the Chancellor's Question Time, will the Leader of the House provide time for him to make a statement on the euro and his approach to it? If he is too busy, perhaps she can persuade the Foreign Secretary to come instead.

May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to early-day motion 526?

[That this House notes that the 1986 Social Security Act introduced a halving of widows' SERPS entitlements in respect of deaths occurring after April 2000; notes that DSS leaflets and correspondence failed to reflect that change for at least a decade after the Act reached the statute book, leading to an investigation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman; notes that many more pensioners who were not actively misled by these leaflets nonetheless knew nothing about the change until they were too old to make realistic alternative provision; and therefore calls on the Government not only to compensate those future pensioners who were misled but also to exempt from the proposed cut any person who has already reached state pension age.]

There continue to be real anger and dismay at the failure to correct the Conservatives' administrative blunder, going back more than 10 years. Can the right hon. Lady find time for a Minister to explain to the House in detail how those affected can establish a claim and receive compensation for that major pensions mis-selling scandal?

I am afraid that I did not hear Question 12 at Treasury questions, but I see not the smallest necessity for the Chancellor to come to the House in order to repeat what he and all of us have said on hundreds of occasions. The tendency of the press to try to reinterpret a policy that has not changed over the past two to two and a half years is deeply boring, and it is even more boring when that keeps happening in the House.

With regard to widows' SERPS entitlement, the hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers have the matter under consideration and are in the process of seeing what can be done to rectify what he rightly calls a serious case of pensions mis-selling. He might, of course, press the official Opposition to raise the matter during their time, as it is they who were responsible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when Ministers discuss the health service next week, it would be helpful if they could make clear not only the short-term implications of a massive transfer of NHS funds into the private sector for the short-term care and treatment of NHS patients, but the long-term effects on the NHS? Ministers should also make clear the need for people being treated in the private sector to enjoy not only the same standards of care, but protection in terms of insurance and the ability to sue anyone who is not providing that high level of care, if they have been transferred without their consent into the private sector.

I know that my hon. Friend is extremely well aware that it is important to the Government, as to individuals, that NHS patients be treated in the private sector only if the standards that we would all expect are preserved. I know that from time to time concerns have been expressed about those standards. Equally, my hon. Friend knows that it is the Government's intention to announce in the not too distant future proposals for a long-term plan for the health service, which should not only raise those standards, but make sure that people have access to NHS care. That is not the position that we inherited, as my hon. Friend knows, but I feel confident, Madam Speaker, that she will seek to catch your eye to make those points during the debate that has just been announced.

During the debate on the Lords, the Leader of the House expressed a commitment to set up soon a Joint Committee of both Houses. If the Government take the view that

Being democratic does not necessarily mean having elections—[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 124.]—

what does the right hon. Lady think that being democratic does necessarily mean?

The right hon. Gentleman was in his place, so he will know that he did not repeat with absolute accuracy the words that I used. I am sure that that was an oversight on his part. It was my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who made the remark to which he has referred. I share the view that an extra group of people elected to the second Chamber would not necessarily be an addition to democracy. If we and the people of this country want a means of electing people who then form the Government, which gives them a direct input into the use of power, it seems to me that that is best expressed through one superior Chamber and another that may give advice. That superior Chamber is this body, and I am surprised to learn that some Members of it do not wish it to remain so.

My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the new targets for waste recycling recently proposed for local authorities. Is she also aware that a number of waste disposal authorities are having difficulty reaching those targets because of the financial regime and the amount of investment in waste management plant, and because the landfill tax operates against such investment? Will she make time in the House for a debate on the matter, given the importance of the new targets to this country's approach to recycling in the future?

I am indeed aware that there is great concern throughout the country that we should pursue the right policy on waste management and that all the details and implications of its implementation should be covered. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time on the Floor of the House, which is under great pressure. However, I recommend the extra opportunities for debate and scrutiny of the Government that Westminster Hall provides.

I am sure that the right hon. Lady agrees that anorexia is a serious illness. However, will she advise us whether it would be possible for the Minister for Women to come to the House and explain the apparently ludicrous policy of having weight-watching police to monitor the number of appearances on television by fat people as compared with those by thin people? Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether the policy is simply a plot to ensure that the Deputy Prime Minister gets more television time? If so, Conservative Members heartily approve of it.

I am afraid that I missed the hon. Gentleman's punch line. The relevant Minister will attend Question Time on Tuesday week. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to an article in the Daily Mail. I agree that anorexia is a serious and difficult subject, and I believe that some serious discussion took place yesterday about the way in which it can be tackled, but for me the tone of the article was set by a photograph on the next page—of two women wearing lampshades.

My right hon. Friend will have seen report this week about the attack on the house of Margaret Dongo, who is a Member of Parliament in Zimbabwe. Margaret Dongo is the only Member from the Movement for Democratic Change because she is a courageous woman who had the guts to challenge the electoral malpractices of the ruling party. When I spoke to her the night before last, she told of her house being attacked by rocks and stones. She cowered under a table in fear of her life. My right hon. Friend also knows that elections take place in Zimbabwe this weekend. Will she consider a debate next week on their outcome and the difficulties that will remain whatever the result?

I know that the whole House deplores the violence to which my hon. Friend referred and the pressure that the opposition are under in Zimbabwe. My hon. Friend knows that the Government and, indeed, the whole House have repeatedly urged the right of the people of Zimbabwe to make their choice freely and fairly in the elections this weekend. The event that my hon. Friend described is a sharp reminder of how fortunate we are to have the political peace that we enjoy in this country.

I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wishes to keep the House informed. Perhaps a time scale will be set as the information comes in. I cannot give an undertaking for a debate at the moment, but I will bear my hon. Friend's observations in mind.

In a week in which the flower of English cricket has been bundled out of a test match in three days, the flower of English football has been bundled out of Euro 2000, and the flower of English hooliganism has been bundled out of Belgium, the only people not able to move about much were those who were trying to escape this country and who were paralysed by a computer failure at three of the main British airports and a broken rail on the London underground. Could we have a debate soon about when and whether life will improve under new Labour?

The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by referring to the unfortunate lack of success of some of our sportsmen and women. I attribute a lot of that to the sale of school playing fields under the Conservative Government.

I know that the House of Lords is a problem for everybody and that we have had a big discussion of it, but I support the third way. The third option is to abolish the House of Lords. We could then have a revising Chamber of about 100 lawyers in this place; they could dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. We do not need a second Chamber. At least two countries do not have one. And now that we have got rid of the hereditary principle, why not abolish the monarchy as well?

I am not entirely sure that that is what is conventionally regarded as the third way. I do know, however, that Lord Wakeham, for instance, believes that unless the second Chamber is a distinctly different Chamber bringing different experience to bear, there is no point in having it. In that sense Lord Wakeham is a unicameralist, as he has made plain, and—although it does not represent the policy that the Government are advocating—I understand the logic of that approach.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government agree that the second Chamber should be different and distinctive, and not a clone of, or competitor with, this Chamber. That is why we are minded to accept the broad proposals in the Wakeham report.

The 8,500 multiple sclerosis sufferers who would benefit from beta interferon will be bitterly disappointed by the Prime Minister's airy dismissal of the question asked during yesterday's Question Time by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I rather suspect that, by now, the Prime Minister himself may regret having so cheaply dismissed the concerns of those who are worried about the leak from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

Is it not time the Government found time for a debate on the way NICE works? Should we not debate not just the question of the drug's cost-effectiveness—which it may be reasonable for NICE to consider—but why civil servants, professors and doctors are considering the issue of affordability? Affordability is at the heart of the decision about beta interferon. Is it not time that the House engaged in a full debate to discuss the implications?

I utterly contest—as I think anyone who heard him would—the notion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister airily dismissed the concerns of MS sufferers. He did no such thing, as the hon. Gentleman should know if he was present yesterday—and I think, from memory, that he was.

It is nonsense to suggest that NICE is making decisions simply on grounds of cost. Only last week, it ruled that taxane drugs for the treatment of breast and ovarian cancer, which are also very expensive, should be made available throughout the health service. That did not happen under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. The hon. Gentleman should also know, as there have been television interviews and so on, that there is some difference of view in the medical profession about the effectiveness of beta interferon. In any event, he must be aware that conclusions have not yet been reached. These are preliminary views which are out for consultation.

What I found most striking yesterday was the sheer opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition. As recently as 11 May, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the Opposition health spokesman, said:

In any limited budget, priorities have to be set. These must be on the basis of clinical need, not political convenience.

That is quite correct, but it is not what the hon. Gentleman is saying—and he may have noticed that there is a health debate next week.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservative party has set up a commission to consider the modernisation of Parliament? I believe that it is due to report at about the same time as the Modernisation Committee. Will my right hon. Friend give us an early opportunity, preferably before the recess, for the two important reports to be debated? The issue is pressing for many of us, and such a debate might just give us a unique opportunity to secure cross-party consensus.

I am not aware of the timetable for the Conservative party commission report, and I have no idea whether it is likely to be produced before the recess. I am not sure whether I would be able to find time for a debate before the House rises for the summer but, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), these matters are under consideration.

I hope that there will be a report from the Modernisation Committee in the near future, and that it will help the House to reach some views. If such a report is produced, however, and if the House can pronounce on it, the matter must be resolved before the next Session. That seems to me to be the important thing, rather than the precise timing of any possible debate.

May we please have an urgent debate on the reliability, and extent of commitment, of ministerial statements? Can the debate please be led by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment? Can we have, before the debate commences—although I hope that it is held very soon—a full briefing from the chief inspector of Ofsted? That would enable us to assess how far the Secretary of State should be taken seriously, as he made an important commitment to resign his office if an important educational target was not met. We could also include a much wider-ranging debate involving several other Ministers, in order that we could judge their statements and commitments appropriately.

There are regular opportunities to discuss issues with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in the Chamber. He did indeed make that commitment. He and his Department are well on course to deliver the targets that they have set. I thought that those who wished to see better government would applaud the Government's determination both to set targets and to ensure that they are achieved.

My right hon. Friend will recall that, on Tuesday, the House was asked to consider the Second Reading of a Bill after 10 o'clock at night. That resulted in the House rising at about 1.30 am. It afforded another splendid period of nocturnal playtime for the kindergarten group on the Opposition Benches, but it did nothing to enhance the reputation of the House of Commons. Three years into the modernisation programme, the question of hours and the sensible organisation of business must be resolved. Will she ensure that the House has an early opportunity to come to a view and a decision on that?

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I have said repeatedly that I think that no hon. Member objects to being here for long hours on occasion when there are matters of real substance, importance and delicacy to be addressed, but I accept that there are occasions when that is not always judged to be the case. I am also mindful of the need not to curtail debate.

I have some proposals. We have given much thought to whether it is possible to reconcile these two difficult elements. I hope that it will prove to be so. It is more important to achieve improvements in the efficiency of the way in which the House works than to be perhaps excessively nervous about the precise time that takes to achieve.

May I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider her response to a request for a debate on the role and remit of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, given that, on Tuesday, a number of Members on both sides of the House from the north-west of England had meetings with leading neurologists, who made it clear that there is consensus in the profession that beta interferon is an effective drug for many multiple sclerosis sufferers?

In that context, is it not important that NICE should not just take a view based on the cost to the national health service budget, but bear in mind the enormous cost to welfare budgets and social service budgets, and the costs in lost earnings and lost tax revenue, which arise from the avoidable sickness of so many people?

I am very conscious of the concern felt by many people with MS, and that a strong body within the profession believes that beta interferon will help some sufferers, although the hon. Gentleman should be aware that it will not necessarily help all sufferers. He will know, I hope, that there is no suggestion in the NICE report that those who receive beta interferon should cease to receive it. The report is out for consultation. It is a preliminary report in draft. Neither I nor any other Member has seen it.

Yet again, I remind the hon. Gentleman of the sensible remarks of the shadow health spokesman, which I anticipate will, in consequence, be repeated in the debate in the House next week, pointing out that there has to be a system of clear, explicit and transparent priority setting, and that not to have such a system—it is exactly what NICE is—would mean putting our heads in the sand and pretending that the problem did not exist. That is what some Opposition Members seem to be trying to do.

Following the front-page story in today's Daily Record that Mike Tyson has physically assaulted someone so that they required hospital treatment, can my right hon. Friend arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement on whether he will review the conditions of Mike Tyson's entry into this country, bearing in mind the fact that one of the reasons for allowing him entry was that he was not considered a threat to anybody outside the boxing ring?

I am well aware that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in the matter that she raises. I have not seen the story to which she refers, nor indeed do I know whether it is well founded. May I draw to her attention the fact that it is Home Office questions on Monday, so she might find an opportunity to raise the matter then?

Can the right hon. Lady give us any indication of when the House will have the opportunity to discuss the ratification of the statute for the International Criminal Court? Given the number of individuals around the world who would benefit from the attentions of such a court—not least General Mladic, Mr. Milosevic and Foday Sankoh—is it not extraordinary that Britain took the lead in setting it up, yet we are one of the Parliaments that is slowest to undertake the necessary ratification procedure? The House deals with a number of other measures that may be of less consequence; this is of international importance. Is it not time we got on with it?

The hon. Gentleman will know that no one is more mindful of pressure on the legislative timetable than I am. He will know that the ratification that he seeks will require further legislation. Although I would have hoped that the matter was not particularly controversial across the House, the hon. Gentleman will be aware, as I am, that matters that one would not have considered controversial have taken up a considerable amount of time this Session. In effect, the hon. Gentleman is making a bid for the next Queen's Speech and he will know that I cannot comment on that.

Is my right hon. Friend is aware of the fact that the Home Office working group that has been looking into forced marriages will report at the end of this month? Does she agree that it would give a great deal of encouragement to many young Asian women in my constituency and throughout west Yorkshire were we to have a debate on the outcome of that report?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a great interest in this subject and has done a great deal of work on it. Although I am aware of the existence of the working group, which does extremely important work, I was not aware that the report was likely to emerge on that timetable and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter on the Floor of the House, but it is exactly the kind of issue that she might seek an opportunity to raise in Westminster Hall.

Will the right hon. Lady agree to a early debate in Government time on the excessively high fuel duties and their adverse impact on road hauliers, other industries, not least the farming community, and those of us who live in rural villages and communities? It would also enable the Government to explain to the wider British public why two separate formulae were used to calculate the inflation rate for pensions and for fuel duties.

The hon. Lady raises the issue of the impact of high fuel duty, which has been much discussed in the House. She will know that an escalator was introduced on fuel duties for environmental reasons and that the precedent was set by the Conservative Government. This Government continued to follow that precedent for some time, although we have now ceased to do so. The hon. Lady will also know that the index on which the level of inflation for the pension increase was judged was set many years ago by the Conservative Government and this Government have not changed it, although these matters are reviewed from time to time. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time for a further debate in Government time, although I have no doubt that in various ways they will continue to be raised.

At a meeting of the all-party group on leasehold reform the other evening, Ministers indicated that a draft Bill would appear in the next month or so. Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to take further with her ministerial colleagues the discussions that were mentioned at business questions earlier this year? I refer to whether a Scrutiny Committee could examine the proposed legislation, which will introduce for the first time in English law a new form of property tender.

My hon. Friend—who takes a close interest in the subject, which is of considerable importance in his constituency—makes the interesting suggestion that the draft Bill ought to be subject to some form of pre-legislative scrutiny. I undertake to raise that matter with the ministerial colleagues primarily concerned.

Notwithstanding this afternoon's debate on the intelligence agencies, may we have at least a statement on the activities of another intelligence agency operating in the House—given truly shocking reports that Labour party researchers have admitted to habitually eavesdropping on a right hon. Gentleman and passing that intelligence to 10 Downing street? Does the right hon. Lady recall the fate of a politician on the other side of the Atlantic who encouraged such practices?

I have heard of such reports but am not aware that anybody has admitted to habitual eavesdropping on the leader of the Liberal party. If anyone employed as a so-called political adviser has been doing so, they should be sacked for incompetence.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be great dismay and disappointment among not scores but hundreds of hon. Members of all parties at the news that the House will not debate before the summer recess the urgent matter of modernisation? Many of us are getting fed up with a few Conservative Members jerking at the end of their chain to frustrate the clear will of the majority of right hon. and hon. Members. I ask my right hon. Friend not to say definitely today that we will be denied the opportunity to debate that matter before the summer.

I try never to say anything definitive during business questions. I do not definitively rule out such a debate, but at present one seems unlikely. I do not fully understand the concern as to whether or not the matter is debated before the summer recess. If such a report emerges and is debated, the important point is that a decision be made in time for it to become effective at the only point when it could be given effect to—perhaps in a new parliamentary Session. I assure my hon. Friend that I have in no way lost sight of the matter.

Given that time is drawing on, may I give the Leader of the House the opportunity to say yes to a request for a debate? The right hon. Lady has considered sympathetically in the past the fate of people living in Kingskerswell and the lack of a bypass there. Holcroft Fox has now reported that the people of Kingskerswell are entitled to relief and that only a bypass can provide it. Will the right hon. Lady urgently find time for a debate, so that the Government can clarify their position on the construction of bypasses? If they mean to go ahead with the building programmes they have suggested, there is one ready and waiting to start.

I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future but I will draw to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister for Transport the hon. Gentleman's strong view that there is an urgent need to implement that project. My noble Friend anticipates making some proposals about his transport plan in the not too distant future.

Has my right hon. Friend yet heard when the Government's response to the Stewart report might be available? When it is available, will she ensure that we have a debate in the House on the issues surrounding mobile phones and the erection of mobile phone masts? The latter is an issue of great concern to many of my constituents, not least in my own village of Culcheth. Will she draw those concerns to the attention of Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, so that the House has an opportunity to review the laws that were brought in by the previous Government, which give residents little or no chance to make their views known through the planning process before the masts are erected?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, not least because it enables me to say from the Dispatch Box that that concern is deeply felt in my constituency, where several residents are running a strong local campaign. I fully understand the concern that is being expressed. There has been an initial response to the Stewart report, and consideration is being given to the planning implications, but of course I undertake to draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

The right hon. Lady will be aware of the rally and lobby of the House today by the British Weights and Measures Association, which is fighting a laudable, vigorous and patriotic campaign to prevent further metrication of our weights and measures. Will she confirm that Ministers will make time to meet the association today? Will she also confirm that we will have a statement responding to its legitimate requests to protect the interests of small traders especially, who have already buckled under the burden of £5 billion of extra red tape from this Government and who face further regulation through the programme to get rid of British imperial measurements?

I do not know what pressure ministerial diaries are under, but of course I recognise the strong concern that has been long expressed by the British Weights and Measures Association. All that I can do is ask the hon. Gentleman where he was when the previous Government made the changes. This Government have already once, if not twice, postponed the implementation of the measures because we are mindful of their impact on small traders. It is yet another example of Opposition Members deploring things that they themselves did.

With her deep knowledge of social security, my right hon. Friend was, I am sure, burning the midnight oil last night reading the fascinating report by the Social Security Committee on the contributory principle, which was published yesterday. The report drew attention to the long-standing unfairness in the national insurance fund whereby contributions are increased annually by the higher rate of inflation, but benefits—including pensions—are paid out at the lower rate of inflation. As the report makes clear, the national insurance fund has an unneeded surplus, above the contingency funds, of £6 billion, which will grow considerably over the next 20 years, thus allowing the link between pensions and earnings—the higher rate of inflation—to be restored now and in the future.

Can we debate early-day motion 1?

[That this House welcomes the Government's decision to raise income support for pensioners annually in line with average earnings, but regrets the widening gap between the basic pension and income support; notes the Treasury's estimate that by April 2002 the National Insurance Fund's balance will be £8.43 billion above the minimum recommended by the Government Actuary; and urges that part of that surplus should be used to restore the link between the basic pension and average earnings for the remaining years of this Parliament, thus ensuring that all pensioners share in the nation's increasing prosperity and preventing a further increase in the number receiving income support.]

By doing so, the Government could add to the magnificent and beneficial measures that they have taken for pensioners, including the restoration of the link, as the nation's pensioners want.

Of course I understand the importance of the issue that my hon. Friend raises. He will know that the Committee said in its report:

We do agree with the Secretary of State that any use of the present surplus in the national insurance fund must be sustainable in the long term.

He will also know that the Government are committed to improving the welfare of pensioners as fast as we can, but we have set as our priority giving the most to the pensioners who are, by definition, in the greatest need. We will continue to do that, and we shall also continue to try to assist other pensioners, but I fear it is a matter of the time needed to remedy the deficiencies that we inherited.

Will the Leader of the House try to persuade a defence procurement Minister to come to the House and make a statement about the unusual controversy in the Ministry of Defence over the naming of the next two Royal Navy survey vessels? They were to be named HMS Shackleton and HMS Cook. There is no problem with HMS Shackleton, but I understand that the name of the other vessel has met resistance in the Ministry of Defence.

If the right hon. Lady cannot do that, can she persuade a Foreign Office Minister to come to the House and explain why, when I tabled a written question on 13 April to ask whether Lord Levy had had contact with foreign intelligence and security agencies, it took until 7 June to get a one-line reply? It read:

In line with long standing practice of successive Governments we do not comment on intelligence matters.—[Official Report. 7 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 291W.]

Would she not agree that, if that was the right answer, it should have been given me two days after I posted the question, not two months?

I know nothing about the naming of ships commissioned for the Royal Navy. However, I do know that the contract that has been placed will sustain 800 jobs in Devon. That seems much more important than what the ships are called, although I have no doubt that that will be a matter of concern to someone.

Secondly, of course I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not get an answer to his question sooner. We continually remind colleagues of the importance of responding more speedily, but I fear that, as the answer revealed, there is nothing further that I can add on security and intelligence matters.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate the real cost of rail travel in this country compared with other European countries? According to research that I commissioned from the Library, the standard inter-city fare from, say, Paddington to Cardiff costs twice as much as the fare for an equivalent journey in Belgium or France, and more than six times as much as in Italy. That is a direct result of the policies of the previous Conservative Government, although the train operating companies deny that and try to argue that British passengers get a fair deal.

Given the amount of taxpayer's money that subsidises fares in this country, does she not agree that passengers have a right to know whether they are getting ripped off by the train operators?

I have some sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend makes. I know that there is considerable concern about fares in this country, especially in connection with the contracts signed with the rail operators. I know also that the Rail Regulator and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions keep the matter under review. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, but I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

May we have an early debate on the effect of this Labour Government on Parliament and on the democratic accountability of the Executive? Charter 88 has stated that the Prime Minister has created an elective dictatorship by concentrating power in Downing street, and that the result of his control freakery is that everything is managed from the centre. Would not an early full-day debate be the appropriate way to answer that charge?

I have rarely agreed with much of what Charter 88 says, and I do not propose to start now.

May we have a debate on developments in the steel industry? That is especially important because the Corus group is stripping out the industry's heart and creating thousands of redundancies throughout the United Kingdom. The situation is especially bad in my constituency. Strategic sectors of British industry are being closed down, so is it not about time for the voice of Parliament to be heard?

Of course I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, and I am very mindful indeed of the anxieties felt in constituencies such as his. He will know that steps have been taken by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities to offer help and support to those who unfortunately lose out as a result of the changes.

I also understand and accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and others have concerns about manufacturing employment more generally. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter on the Floor of the House, but my hon. Friend might like to consider Westminster Hall.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on democracy so that Conservative Members can talk about this week's Charter 88 report, which referred to the worrying concentration of power in the hands of the Executive? We could also talk about the burgeoning cost of government: more than £2 billion a year more is spent now than three years ago, and the number of special advisers funded by the taxpayer has doubled. Such a debate would also afford Labour Members the opportunity to talk about the matters that interest them, such as why they cannot get home to bed by 10 o'clock at night.

I have not read the Charter 88 report. I wholly reject the notion that there is something unseemly in the way in which the Government is being run and managed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the figures for extra costs are completely spurious. The figures that Conservative Members continually use are simply the cash figures. In real terms, we are spending less on administration than did the Conservative party when it was last in government. Indeed, not only are we spending less, but the number of those employed in the public services at the centre has gone down, while the number of public servants in services such as health and education is rising and will continue to rise.

On special advisers, we take the view that Ministers should have a proper range of advice, and we take the same view with regard to the Opposition. The increase in advice to Government has been more than matched by the increase in advice to the Opposition, who are clearly in sore need of it.

Given that this morning, for some strange reason, the House failed to reach my Question 34 on taxation, I would like to ask the right hon. Lady for an early debate on the need for transparency in taxation. In the light of the criticism by the Select Committee on the Treasury of the Chancellor's refusal to publish the figures that show the impact of direct and indirect taxes on the typical household and on households in other income deciles, would not such a debate allow the Chancellor the opportunity to explain whether he will mend his ways and, if he will not do so, why on earth he expects to be taken seriously when he is picking the pockets of the British people on an unprecedented scale?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have given independence to the national statistical service, something that the previous Government never had the courage to do. That will, over time, undoubtedly increase confidence in the statistics that we publish—confidence that was sorely missing under the previous Administration.

As for the idea that the Chancellor should come here to debate the figures that he gives, I think that when he comes to the Dispatch Box we should debate the fact that we have the lowest inflation for a generation, the lowest mortgage rates for a generation, with the best levels of employment and the lowest levels of unemployment since 1980, which was the beginning of the Conservative party's term in office. Those are the issues that really matter to the British people, not the Conservative party's allegations.

Today is the second occasion in this Parliament that we have had the opportunity to debate intelligence and security issues. The three agencies together make a valuable and unique contribution to the safety and security of our society and, in an international context, to that of our allies.

The agencies provide us with a vital edge in tackling some of the most difficult problems that we face. They play a significant role in our efforts against terrorism, drugs and serious crime and in defence of our national security. Because of the necessary secrecy of their work, their contribution often goes unremarked and unacknowledged. Much of what they achieve cannot be given the recognition that it deserves. To do so would give those against whom the agencies work the opportunity to sidestep their efforts. It could very well also undermine the protection of those who already carry out their service to this country, sometimes at considerable personal risk.

Among other things, today's debate provides a welcome opportunity to thank the agencies and their staff for their valuable contribution. All of us who have had contact with the agencies—Secretaries of State and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee over the years—will readily acknowledge that they are world-class services.

The reports before the House are two from the Intelligence and Security Committee, one from the Home Affairs Committee, one from the Foreign Affairs Committee and one from the Liaison Committee. Of these, the one that inevitably has attracted the most immediate attention is that of the Intelligence and Security Committee on Mitrokhin. For the convenience of the House, I shall deal with that report first.

On 13 September last year I announced that, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I had invited the ISC to examine the policies and procedures adopted within the security and intelligence agencies for the handling of information supplied by Mr. Vasili Mitrokhin. The Committee's report was published earlier this month alongside the Government's response and a parliamentary reply from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

My right hon. Friend and I are very grateful to the ISC, and not least to its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), for their readiness to take on the additional work thrown up by the handling of the Mitrokhin material and for the thoroughness of their report. The right hon. Gentleman has also generously acknowledged that his Committee was afforded unparalleled access to material beyond that of a Select Committee in order to carry out its inquiry.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that through his willingness, when pressed, to make available to the Committee all information, including advice to Ministers, he made possible the thoroughness of the report; that it would not have been possible for the Committee to reach conclusions on some matters had it not had that degree of access; and that lessons ought to be learned for the Committee's future access?

I certainly recognise the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's first point. As I and my right hon. Friends acknowledged, it would otherwise have been impossible to arrive at both a proper understanding of the story as it unfolded and proper conclusions. I also accept his other comment, without entering into any commitments about the exact boundary that we should draw, as a result of this experience, as to the extent to which the ISC should have access to material. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, from his long membership of the Committee, that there are some very important operational matters that the Committee itself acknowledges it would not be appropriate for it to have access to. I also believe that it would be inappropriate.

The main criticisms made by the Committee were of the failures of the Security Service in not referring cases to the prosecuting authorities in a timely manner and of failures by officials in the provision of advice to Ministers. However, there was no suggestion of any attempt to mislead Ministers. In the ISC reports, there was no criticism of Ministers in previous Administrations, nor of Ministers in the current Administration.

As the inquiry report made clear, and as the Government acknowledged in their response, mistakes were made in the handling of this material, not least in the decisions that were made and not made as to whether or not individuals should be prosecuted. The agencies as well as the central Departments concerned—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office—have learned a great deal from the report and this experience, and I believe that the lessons have been identified and accepted.

Can the Home Secretary shed any light on paragraph 60 of the report, which records that in his statement on 13 September 1999 he had the opportunity to reflect on the Security Service's view of the significance of Mrs. Norwood's activities but did not do so, and that, as a result, the public perception of Mrs. Norwood is that, in the words of the paragraph,

she provided a real contribution to the Soviet atomic bomb development

when in fact, in the view of the Security Service, she did not?

I shall do my best to answer. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his warning to me that he was likely to raise the matter.

The explanation is an unusual one but is entirely accurate, as indeed everything I say in this House is. It is that in the preceding week I had had an operation on a damaged cartilage in my knee and had undergone a general anaesthetic. I was on crutches and groggy for the rest of the week. On the Saturday morning, when I was telephoned to be told that various allegations had been made in The Times that, for example, I had blocked a prosecution of Melita Norwood, which was completely untrue, I was still coming round from the effects of the anaesthetic and was hoping for a quiet lie-in, although, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the prospects of that if one is Home Secretary are random and infrequent.

I returned to London from my constituency on the Sunday, having decided that I should issue a statement as soon as I had been able to go through the material. Officials worked on the Sunday to pull together all that I had seen over the period since May 1997. My recollection is that, as I was not in a position to make a proper judgment about whether or not Mrs. Norwood's position as a spy had been either of huge or of any significance, and as the public would not have taken comfort if I had merely repeated what I was being told, I decided that it was better left alone. That is my explanation.

With the benefit of history, we know that less damage was done by Mrs. Norwood's spying than might otherwise have been the case; in the event, as the report says on page 23, the Soviets copied American designs that they had obtained. However, during the time that she had access to highly secret material and was passing it to the Russians, her behaviour was damaging both because it was treacherous and because it had the potential to be extremely damaging to the interests of this country.

Although there has been great concentration on the nuclear secrets that Mrs. Norwood may or may not have passed on, it is worth noting that she remained active for a considerable period after she had ceased to be directly involved in that area. It is alleged that she recruited another defector as late as 1969, which makes it clear that she was still considered to be of value to the Soviet Union.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose point suggests that my befuddled caution on Monday 13 September was well placed. He is quite right. Although it was clear, as I made plain in my public statement at the time—Parliament, of course, was not sitting—that Mrs. Norwood's direct access to highly classified material had ended in 1951, she remained active and was obviously seen by the Russians as having some importance. We should not forget the positive points identified by the ISC's inquiry. They include confirmation of our success in obtaining Mr. Mitrokhin's material, which was, and remains, of huge significance to us and our allies. In addition, it confirms success in exploiting his material at home and abroad, and confirms that a decision to allow publication of a book on the material was correct and that much of the publication process—although not all of it—was sound. Finally, the report serves to highlight a point arising from the Mitrokhin material—namely, the effective work of the security and intelligence services in countering the significant and potentially damaging intelligence threat posed by the former Soviet Union.

The House will recognise the significance of the success of the ISC's inquiry. It demonstrates both the developing role of the Committee and its maturing relationship with the agencies. I am glad that there was no suggestion that the statutory accountability of any agency is inadequate, or that proper oversight and internal management are not taking place. By definition, the work of the agencies cannot be open. Proper mechanisms for scrutiny are, therefore, all the more important.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, since he entered the House in 1974, and I, since 1979, have been among Members of Parliament on both sides of the House concerned about the lack of a proper statutory base for the intelligence and security agencies and for the part of their operations to do with the interception of communications. A series of measures put that right: the Security Service Acts 1989 and 1996, for the Security Service, and the Intelligence Services Act 1994, for the Secret Intelligence Service and for the Government communications headquarters.

Those Acts, together with the Interception of Communications Act 1985, provide for independent scrutiny by commissioners of the actions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself in respect of the agencies for which we are responsible, and for scrutiny of the actions of the agencies themselves. Each officer in each agency has a duty under the law to provide the commissioners with the information they need.

I pay tribute to the work of the previous commissioners, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Lord Nolan, for their contribution as commissioners and for the important scrutiny role that they played. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will confirm that the work of Lord Nolan—the interception commissioner—was very thorough indeed. The Home Secretary has the bulk of the responsibility for telephone interception—although the point also applies to successive Foreign Secretaries—and were any Home Secretary ever to think about approving a warrant without proper consideration, he would be brought up sharp by Lord Nolan. That fact would be made public—and quite right too. I am glad to say—on behalf of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself—that, so far, that has not happened.

Both commissioners retired from their role earlier this year. On behalf of the Government, the agencies and previous Ministers with whom they worked, I thank them warmly for their contribution.

We achieve accountability of the work of the agencies through the scrutiny of the ISC whose reports form the bulk of the subject of our debate.

Is it not of interest that when David Bickford, the former legal adviser to the security and intelligence services, gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last year, he said that the credit for oversight was due to the cases of our right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and our hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce. It was because they had been targeted by the security services and had taken their cases to the European Court that it was decided that some oversight was essential. Perhaps we should acknowledge the important role played by our two parliamentary colleagues.

We shall not know exactly what went on under the previous Government until the records are made public. However, there is no doubt that those two cases played an important part in concentrating the mind of the Government on the need for the establishment of proper oversight.

Does the Home Secretary agree that, from time to time, it is inevitable that the Security Service will look at the activities of people who subsequently become Members of Parliament? Bearing that in mind, what would he recommend as an appropriate recourse for such people if they were anxious to find out whether they had been wrongly targeted? Does he agree that it would be unacceptable for them to be able to demand to see their files and that perhaps someone else should do the job on their behalf? Will he take this opportunity to state that the request of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), for such access will be refused?

As far as I am aware, no request has been made to me by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is waving a piece of paper at me. If he says that such a request has been made, I take his word for it. I am trying to satisfy him with the answer that I am about to give, so there is no need for him to wave something that has been pulled off the internet—even with my eyesight, I cannot read small type at that distance. I do not believe that Members of Parliament should be treated differently from anyone else before the law. That applies to cases of corruption, immunity from prosecution and matters relating to the security and intelligence agencies.

The House knows that the Security Service held inquiries into me over a period of years and that it holds a file on me. On one occasion, as I think the House knows, I was shown the file by a properly authorised officer of the Security Service, but I saw only one part of its contents. That was its decision; certainly not mine. I learned of that when I was positively vetted—successfully, I might say—in 1974 and I decided that I would never make public the facts that I had learned. Someone else decided to make the information public, but I have never sought to have access to that file. It would have been wholly improper if I had sought to do so, and a reply in the negative will be given to any Member of this House who asks to see his file. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

indicated assent.

Make an exception of the hon. Gentleman's file.

I do not know whether there is a file on the hon. Gentleman.

There has been some debate—the matter has been raised by the Home Affairs Committee over the years—about whether scrutiny of the intelligence and security agencies should be carried out by a Select Committee of the House or by a Committee of the kind that has been established. It needs to be made clear that that Committee is a parliamentary Committee and that, in some ways, it has clearer and stronger powers than a Select Committee because it has been established by an Act of Parliament.

I have always been relatively relaxed about what the Committee should be called because of two realities. First, the members who would be appointed to any Select Committee would be appointed in a similar manner to the way in which the members of the current Committee are appointed. Secondly, any Select Committee that was going to do its job properly would have to operate in a similar way to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Indeed, it is impossible to conceive of how it could operate in any other way if it were to be able to carry out the thorough inquiry that the ISC conducted into the Mitrokhin matter.

Although I know that the Mitrokhin saga has been uncomfortable for the agencies—one understands that—there is a silver lining. The case has emphasised the strength of the mechanisms that Parliament as a whole has agreed for the accountability of the agencies. It was a huge relief to me when I was faced with the situation over a weekend in early December that, instead of having to establish a specific inquiry led almost certainly by someone from outside the House, I was, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, able to telephone the right hon. Member for Bridgwater. I said that the case seemed to be exactly the type of issue on which Parliament would expect his Committee to conduct an inquiry. We had an altogether much more thorough inquiry than we might have had. It certainly commanded greater public and parliamentary support than one conducted by someone specifically brought in from outside.

On the issue of Select Committees, I have a copy of the Government's reply to the third report of the Home Affairs Committee on "Accountability of the Security Service". I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a Home Office comment that reads:

The Government is not convinced that there is a strong case for change in the fundamental structure of these arrangements

and the word "now" is added at the end.

That was for you, Dale.

If so, I am thankful. I understand that the word "now" was the subject of intense debate. Because I cannot debate the matter today with someone from the civil service, will my right hon. Friend explain why it was added?

As the whole House knows, the Government are entirely seamless and joined up and we all agree with each other all the time.

Not a cigarette paper between them.

I hope not.

I hope that no one has cigarette papers in the Chamber.

It follows that every word of the response has been carefully drawn and is subject to collective responsibility. I cannot remember whether it was I or someone else who inserted the word "now", but the point is clear: we are

not convinced that there is a strong case for change in the fundamental structure of these arrangements now.

It would be absurd to say that there should never be any change in the arrangements. We should always consider such matters in the light of experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has been a member of the ISC for some time. The experience of the Mitrokhin report demonstrated the inherent merits of that Committee. That does not mean that we should never adopt the Select Committee path, but doing so is not as urgent as some once thought. I hope that that provides a helpful definition of what the Government meant by the word "now".

The work of the Committee has been strengthened by the appointment of an investigator to assist the Committee with its scrutiny. The investigator allows the Committee to pursue its inquiries in greater depth than would otherwise be possible and to follow up specific lines of inquiry in more detail. He operates within the same legal framework as the Committee, with the same level of access, but he also has the opportunity to discuss issues directly with the staff of the agencies.

The Government's response to the Committee's annual report welcomes the Committee's involvement in many of the areas covered. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I fully endorse its confirmation of the importance of continuing high-quality intelligence and security services for our country. Both to those involved and to the formulation of Government policy, reliable and timely intelligence will remain as important now as it has ever been.

The Government are taking an important step to update and improve the framework that regulates the use by the intelligence and security agencies—and others—of certain intelligence-gathering and investigative techniques. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill proposes an appropriate framework for when the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force, one that is consistent with that Act. It contains provisions regulating the use of investigatory powers including the interception of communications, intrusive surveillance, directed surveillance and covert human intelligence sources. The Bill clearly sets out who can use each technique and for what purpose, levels of authorisation required, oversight of the use of the techniques, and a complaints procedure. Members of the judiciary will act as commissioners overseeing the use of the powers, and a new tribunal will be established to provide a single point of contact for those who want to complain about the use of the powers. The nature of the agencies' accountability to Parliament has long been a matter of debate in this House. There is no need for me to explore that matter further.

Let me now go on to discuss some wider issues relating to the agencies' work.

The right hon. Gentleman says that the security services felt uncomfortable about the criticism expressed in the Mitrokhin report; no doubt that is true, but does he not agree that the report should be seen in context? Even though we are only extremely rarely able to report the agencies' successes, we know about them. Although in the Mitrokhin report we criticised the things that went wrong, the members of the Committee are well aware that things go right on many occasions, but that, because of the nature of the work, the outside world cannot be told.

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those words, which carry the greater authority coming as they do from a member of the Committee. Those of us who work directly with the agencies day to day would agree strongly with him. It is true of any organisation that its mistakes are more often noticed than its successes celebrated, but it is all the more true of the agencies because of the secret environment in which they operate.

The unpredictability of the post-cold-war era has thrown up different challenges, such as the global concerns of terrorism, weapons proliferation and drugs. Keeping up with, and setting up a credible defence against, today's dynamically changing threats and targets is a tough challenge. The agencies have approached those new priorities with imagination and dedication.

The agencies have scored real successes. Their achievements include helping the law enforcement agencies target drug trades, frustrating the ambitions of those regimes that seek to acquire the technology for nuclear, chemical or biological weapons achievements and frustrating those with terrorist agendas, all of which have been significant and effective as well as crucial to saving lives.

The Security Service has demonstrated great flexibility in responding to existing threats to national security and adapting to new challenges. We must all be encouraged by developments in Northern Ireland, but the recent attack on Hammersmith bridge demonstrates that the threat from dissident republican elements intent on wrecking the peace process remains real. Countering that threat therefore continues to be a high priority for the service, which makes an essential contribution to frustrating the aims of such terrorist groups and other terrorist organisations that pose a threat to UK interests.

The Security Service is a key player in countering the threat to the critical national infrastructure posed by malicious electronic attack. The National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre was established in December 1999 to provide a single point of access to the Government's arrangements for encouraging improved defences against electronic attack. I am confident that the Security Service is an effective organisation and that accountability and oversight of the service's activities are adequate. During the three years that I have held my office, I have come to admire greatly the many staff of the service whom I have met, and the leadership of its director general, Stephen Lander, who was knighted in the birthday honours.

It is appropriate at this point to take the opportunity to inform hon. Members that the Prime Minister and I have agreed with the Director General of the Security Service that his term of appointment be extended to October 2002. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to receive the approbation of the House, and am sure that members of the ISC will commend this arrangement.

As the House knows, although I am responsible for the Security Service, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is directly responsible for the two other intelligence services, the Secret Intelligence Service and Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham. GCHQ has played an increasing, and increasingly effective, role in the war against organised crime, co-operating closely with the law enforcement agencies. It too has a prime role in safeguarding the critical national infrastructure that I mentioned earlier.

The SIS relies for its effectiveness on a world-leading reputation for secrecy and trust, as well as for great expertise and professionalism. That reputation is the service's most effective tool in convincing those who might help this country—sometimes at risk to their own lives, often at risk to their livelihoods and in dangerous situations—that their secrets and personal security are safeguarded. The SIS continues to make a special, and often vital, contribution to a range of international challenges faced by Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will, of course, speak at greater length about the work of the agencies for which he is responsible when he comes to wind up the debate.

I know that many hon. Members want to contribute to this important debate, and it is right that we have set aside parliamentary time for them to do so. I commend the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee to the House, and look forward to continuing to work with it to ensure that we draw the right balance between scrutiny and secrecy, which is essential to maintain the effectiveness of these unique and crucial national assets.

I should like to add the agreement of the Opposition to the Home Secretary's tribute to the men and women who work in our intelligence and security services. As he rightly observed, the vast majority of them do so behind the scenes without public recognition. Their task is difficult and sometimes dangerous, yet, for reasons that we all appreciate, the full story is not told, and sometimes never can be. I also congratulate Stephen Lander on his honour, and on the extension of his contract.

The security services' work is of the utmost importance, and recent events have shown that we must remain vigilant. The murder of Brigadier Stephen Saunders in Athens was a dreadful reminder that terrorist organisations continue to flourish, even in the member states of the European Union. The Hammersmith bridge bomb and yesterday's explosion in Belfast pointed to a possible resurgence in terrorist activity connected to Northern Ireland.

As the Intelligence and Security Committee's latest annual report states, the threat to this country and its armed forces from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in the middle and far east, remains significant and is growing. The agencies also have important roles to play in the fight against drugs and organised crime, which, sadly, remain significant forces of evil in our society. That is the national and global context in which the services and their staff have to operate.

I also pay tribute to the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee and to its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). We are indeed fortunate to have such an accomplished and experienced person as my right hon. Friend serving in that position. It is particularly encouraging that the Committee has won, and retained, the confidence of the services themselves. No doubt my right hon. Friend, when taking up his post, did not envisage the high media profile that the job has brought him in recent days, and I shall now turn to the reason for that media interest in the security and intelligence services.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are grateful to the Committee for the way in which it conducted the Mitrokhin inquiry, and I should also like to put on record the Opposition's heartfelt thanks to Vasili Mitrokhin, who undertook his work at tremendous risk. I wish to associate the Opposition with the Committee's conclusion that Mr. Mitrokhin

is a man of remarkable commitment and courage, who risked imprisonment or death in his determination that the truth should be told.

It is to the credit of the Secret Intelligence Service that it realised the value of the material that Mr. Mitrokhin was offering, and brought him and his family to this country. However, the way in which his valuable intelligence material was subsequently handled by this country's security and intelligence services gives cause for concern. It is said that the US President may have known about that British intelligence coup before the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).

There are lessons to be learned from the Mitrokhin inquiry report, and I personally find it regrettable that confessed traitors such as Melita Norwood will never be prosecuted for betraying their country. There were undoubtedly serious failings in the system, and we can all hope that those will not recur.

In a November 1998 debate, the Home Secretary refuted the assertion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that it was unusual for Whitehall Departments to work closely together. My right hon. Friend mentioned the Pinochet case in that respect, but his comments are borne out equally well, if not more so, by the Mitrokhin case, despite the Home Secretary's denial.

One of the most unfortunate aspects was that we had to learn about the whole affair through leaks to the media, and there are still a number of unanswered questions. Will the Home Secretary now—I shall give way to him when I have finished this point, as I do not think that he has answered it fully on previous occasions—tell the House why, despite the fact that he knew in December 1998 that details of the Norwood case would be published, he failed to make a statement to the House until those details had already been made public?

When I put that question to the Home Secretary on 26 October 1999, he argued that he could not have made a statement because he was waiting for the Attorney-General's decision on whether to prosecute Mrs. Norwood. He said that he was asked

why I did not inform Parliament when I was first told of plans to publish the Mitrokhin archive. As I said, I was told that in December 1998.

He went on to say:

before the Attorney-General and the prosecutors could decide, she—

that means me

was inviting me to announce that consideration of prosecution was in train. That … would have been wholly improper.—[Official Report, 26 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 830–31.]

However, the Attorney-General's decision, in so far as it was a decision, was made on 22 March 1999, so for six months we heard nothing whatever from the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman—and, for that matter, the Foreign Secretary—must have known that the matter would shortly come into the public domain via the media, but publication was allowed to take place before a statement was made to the House. Indeed, the information was drip-fed to us by the press—as I put it at the time, we were practically having a spy a day—when the House could have been informed much earlier.

Does the Home Secretary think that the House and the country had a right to know about those matters from the Government before details of the Mitrokhin archive and the Melita Norwood case appeared in the newspapers? I ask that question not to make a partisan point, but to try to clarify the Home Secretary's view on the important issue of the procedure in such cases.

It is amazing that the Prime Minister, who, after all, has overall responsibility for those matters, was not even told about the Melita Norwood case until the day before the story broke in The Times last September. Whatever the Home Secretary may say, there appears to have been a complete lack of co-ordination. Why was the Foreign Secretary informed of the publication project in October 1997, the Prime Minister in December 1997, but the Home Secretary not until December 1998? Was there any co-ordination between their offices—or, indeed, between them personally?

It appears from paragraphs 22 and 56 of the Committee's report that the relevant chapters of the book were not cleared by the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General, so why did the Foreign Secretary approve the book for publication on 21 April last year? In doing so, did he seek the views of the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General, or was he misinformed that the passages had, in fact, been cleared? It is also a matter of concern that the publication criteria set down in 1996 by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the then Foreign Secretary, were not followed. That was one of a number of significant failures in the Departments of State themselves.

I find it hard to believe, as paragraphs 59 and 60 of the report state, that when it was realised last summer that the details would come out in the press, the

media lines to take were being developed by the working group with support from the FCO and the Home Office. The Home Secretary saw the press lines in the week prior to the … story appearing in the Times. The Foreign Secretary did not see them.

Once the story broke Ministers were unable to use the prepared press lines because they were inadequate.

That simply beggars belief. It is clear from the Committee's report, which is excellent and does it credit, that there were many serious failures—but we need not go further over the details.

It is doubly unfortunate that the failures involved sensitive, indeed unique, material such as that provided by Mr. Mitrokhin. Those failures have distracted attention from Mr. Mitrokhin's actions, which, as I have said, deserve the highest praise. In the light of the Committee's report, the Government have decided to put in place measures to try to rectify the deficiencies, and I can only hope that the situation that has been described to us will never recur. It did no one any credit.

I shall try to be as gentle with the right hon. Lady as I can, but the simple truth is that as soon as the matter broke, she reached conclusions about it. She says that they are correct, but they are not supported in any particular by the conclusions of the Intelligence and Security Committee. She concluded that there had been a major lapse by current serving Ministers. There had been lapses, but not by Ministers. If there had been lapses by Ministers, I would hope and expect that members of the Committee would have said so, and said so publicly. They did not.

It is a matter of record, and is stated in paragraph 64 of the report, that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was told on 22 March 1999 that the

Security Service are clearing the detail contained in those chapters … with the Home Secretary (who was briefed on the project in 1998, and is supportive) and the Attorney General.

That is what my right hon. Friend was told, and he had every reason to believe that it was correct. As it turns out, it was incorrect. That has been brought to the attention of the House and the Committee. Of course it has been accepted that there were failures. The Government have accepted in our response that there were failures in the Home Office, in other Departments and in the Security Service, but there was no failure, as the right hon. Lady implied that there was, by Ministers.

If there is a next time—we always learn from experience, but we cannot avoid such things—I suggest that the right hon. Lady does not make such intemperate statements as the one she published on 13 September, in which she stated that I must publish the legal advice that I claim makes a prosecution impossible and explain why I kept it secret from Parliament and the public for more than eight months.

If the right hon. Lady is suggesting that, as a matter of Opposition policy, she is now committed to publishing the legal advice available from the Law Officers in every case, or in any, she had better say so now, because a fundamental aspect of the work of the Law Officers is that their advice to Ministers is never published. Government could scarcely operate if it were.

That is a fascinating defence to accusations that I have not even made. I quoted direct from the Intelligence and Security Committee report. I am very sorry indeed that the right hon. Gentleman did not realise that, but I shall not weary the House by quoting it again. He will find that I quoted specific paragraphs about the utter failure of co-ordination between Departments. If he takes that personally, perhaps there are reasons. I do not know about that, but I do know that every criticism that I have just made has been made in a report praised by both sides of the House as an extremely thorough piece of work.

The right hon. Gentleman may also recall that the final announcement of the decision not to prosecute Melita Norwood was not made to the House, but leaked to the media half an hour before the answer was laid, for which an apology had to be made. Not for a moment can he try to pretend that the handling of this issue—by politicians, by officials or by the various services concerned—has been all that it might have been. Very generously, I noted that the Government have agreed to put in place measures to try to rectify the deficiencies, and hoped that those measures would be effective.

On another aspect of the work of the security services, there is widespread concern at the intention of the former director general, Dame Stella Rimington, to publish her memoirs. It is vital that the men and women who work for our security and intelligence services can feel utterly secure in the knowledge that they and their work will never be compromised by the publication of such books. I hope that the Government will take those concerns into consideration. In his winding-up speech, will the Foreign Secretary tell us more about the Government's intentions, and, perhaps, what stages have been reached in the clearance process?

We were all shocked, and, I believe, deeply disgusted, bearing in mind the origin of the tragedy, by the death of the 58 illegal immigrants in Dover on Monday. Both sides of the House condemn the organised criminal racketeers who feed off human misery and suffering. The introduction to the Committee's report covering 1998–99, which we are debating, stated that there had been "no improvement" in the fight against the traffic in illegal immigrants, and added:

Rather the reverse has occurred …

In the light of recent events, that is certainly an issue to which the Government should turn their attention. I welcome the Home Secretary's indication on Monday that they will give the matter attention. It is crucial that the House is kept informed and that the issue is not neglected.

Another issue raised in the annual report, and one that the Government did not fully address in their response, was resources. The head of the Secret Intelligence Service and the Director General of the Security Service both voiced their concerns about the 2001–02 financial year, saying that the position would be challenging, and flagging up the possibility of being unable to maintain current service levels and meet new challenges.

The Committee observed:

We believe that these concerns should be fully addressed as a matter of some urgency.

That must be especially true, given the Foreign Secretary's remark about the security services during the debate in 1998:

If they are to do their job, they must have confidence that they will be resourced to fulfil the tasks that we place on them.—[Official Report, 2 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 583.]

The Committee was also concerned about the level of resources being focused, along with Customs and Excise, on the fight against drugs. It observed:

We are not convinced that enough effort is being focused at stopping the drugs reaching the UK.

All those matters are particularly worrying. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary can tell us what progress is being made in the areas that I have identified.

I cannot resist observing that I hope that the Government are taking seriously the problem of missing laptop computers, which has come to light in recent months. We have heard of instances of laptops belonging to members of the security and intelligence services going missing or being stolen in what can be described only as bizarre circumstances. We have had to listen to stories of tapas bars, taxis and train stations. I shall be grateful if the Government will clarify the truth of this when they respond, and tell us exactly how many laptops have been lost in recent months by members of the security and intelligence services, and, so far as they can tell us, in what circumstances.

Will the Government at least confirm that no classified or sensitive information has been lost as a result of the adventures with laptops? I hope that measures have been put in place across the services to prevent a recurrence of incidents that make the services look remarkably foolish.

Over the past year and a half, the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Foreign Affairs have both produced reports that have made a valuable contribution to on-going debates. Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends will no doubt wish to refer to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on the Sierra Leone affair in greater detail than I shall, but the cover-up climate that surrounds the issue means that questions will inevitably have to be asked, and it is only right that they should be.

For example, will the Foreign Secretary indicate, in more detail than hitherto, his reasons for refusing the Select Committee informal access to the head of the Secret Intelligence Service? How does that differ from the arrangements that the Home Secretary makes in respect of the security services, and why?

Will the Foreign Secretary also comment on the Committee's conclusion that his refusal to allow it access to the head of the SIS has inhibited its inquiry? Perhaps that is what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, had in mind. What does the Foreign Secretary have to say about the personal criticism of Foreign Office policy, as opposed to the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, that appears in paragraph 108 of the report?

That brings me to the issue of accountability, on which the Select Committee on Home Affairs has produced a report. As I have already said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and the other members of the Intelligence and Security Committee do an excellent job. There is no greater testament to that than the thorough investigation into the Mitrokhin affair. In so far as one can draw such conclusions relatively early in its existence, the Committee is clearly doing its job supremely well.

The Government now see no reason to change the present arrangements. The Opposition agree with that view, as do the majority of the Committee. It is a unique Committee which scrutinises a unique and very sensitive area of the Executive. All sides of the debate agree that its establishment was a significant step forward.

The arrangements put in place by the previous Government are not yet even a decade old. I note the Home Secretary's comments in evidence to the Select Committee that the current arrangements should have time to bed down. When we are talking about institutions with histories much longer than that, I do not think that four or five years can possibly provide a proper evaluation of the new system.

The country's intelligence and security services do a vital job in safeguarding the nation during the increasingly uncertain and violent times in which we live. They, and men and women such as Vasili Mitrokhin, are all too often the unsung heros. Once again, I pay tribute to them, their good work and those who oversee them.

The House will know that I serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I shall refer briefly to two matters in the annual report that may be of some interest to Members and to the wider public, who, I hope, read our debates about the agencies.

First, there is the continuing interest that the Committee takes in international developments in intelligence oversight. Two members of the Committee, including me, went to a bi-annual inspector-generals conference in Canada in June 1999. Members of the Committee more senior than I had attended it previously. There were representatives from countries such as Australia, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the USA. It was good that South Africa was represented, because the Minister responsible was present, and the Committee that oversaw his Department, along with representatives of the agencies. Some good debates on oversight took place.

In the introduction to the report are set out the inward delegations that have come to this country, including officials and parliamentarians involved in intelligence and oversight, They have come from countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, Hungary, South Korea, Romania, Poland and the Ukraine.

Having emerged from communism, many of those countries are referred to by the west as developing democracies. I hope that we influence them in talking about the way in which we in this country approach our work in overseeing agencies. They explain to us in great detail the roles that they play in that respect, and some of them have real reservations about the way in which their agencies operated in different guises many years ago. It is a fascinating debate in which to be involved. They see their agencies as operating more along the lines within which our agencies have operated over many years.

The second issue arising from the annual report is serious crime. The Committee was told about the growing importance of smuggling cigarettes into the United Kingdom. Customs and Excise estimates that about £1,500 million is lost to the Exchequer every year as a result of duty and tax avoidance. Some lorry containers can bring in smuggled cigarettes to the value of £1 million. We were told that the scale of the profits that can be made from cigarette smuggling is comparable with the profits made from drug smuggling, and that criminals are turning to cigarette smuggling because the risks and penalties are lower than those that apply with drugs. We have emphasised the fact that we believe that any additional resources given to the agencies to allow them to work in this area could effectively be self-funding for the Exchequer through the recovery of duty and tax.

The Government's response was that they agreed about the loss of revenue to the Exchequer through smuggling, and that they would continue to keep under consideration the resources needed to combat it. Since the report was published, millions of extra pounds have gone into Customs and Excise to try to stop serious crime, including smuggling and the avoidance of duty.

We have not emphasised penalties. If I were found with half a million pounds worth of class A drugs in the back of a lorry, I would face a penalty of up to life imprisonment. However, if I was found with half a million pounds worth of smuggled cigarettes, the penalty would be much less. It is no wonder that people are moving into smuggling cigarettes and not dealing in class A drugs. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary could give us his views on that, or write to me. I understand why we did not highlight that part of the report, but we should consider the issue of penalties.

The major report that we are debating relates to the Mitrokhin inquiry. We concluded that there was serious failure on the part of the Security Service in that it did not consult the Law Officers about the case of Mrs. Norwood. We also noted that the action prevented her possible prosecution. Some of the headlines that followed the publication of the report seemed ridiculous, implying that we had suggested that she should have been prosecuted. The simple fact is that it was not up to us, just as we did not think that it was up to the Security Service, to take that decision. The report makes that clear.

The other issue relating to Melita Norwood was that she had slipped out of sight. We believe that was a further serious failure on the part of the Security Service over a number of years. We were advised that the systems covering prosecution referrals to the Law Officers and the monitoring of espionage cases within the Security Service have been changed to prevent similar serious failings occurring again. I emphasise that, because it took place during our inquiry. It was recognised that things had gone a little wrong, and procedures inside the agencies were changed.

We agreed that the establishment of an interdepartmental working group to oversee the publication of the Mitrokhin archive was a sound decision. However, we concluded that officials failed to keep Ministers fully informed and to ensure that the decisions of the working group were carried out. As a consequence of those failures, Ministers made decisions on the basis of incorrect information.

We also noted that the working group was not adequately constituted to develop the necessary media strategy and to ensure that Ministers were alerted in a timely manner and provided with appropriate and robust lines to take. We stated in our conclusions that

misleading stories were allowed to receive wide circulation by a failure to anticipate the likely media focus and to have prepared and promulgated appropriate responses.

In the Government's response, they accepted that the preparations for the handling of the publicity surrounding the archive were ineffective, and officials recognised that there would be considerable public interest, and that the Government's normal and entirely proper refusal to comment on intelligence-related matters would not be adequate. The implications of non-prosecution of Mrs. Norwood were not sufficiently worked through. In consequence there was inadequate preparation of responses to the reaction and the interest aroused in the media and in Parliament.

I see quite clearly how the situation came about, but given that the Government acknowledge that officials recognised that there would be considerable public interest, and that Government's normal and entirely proper refusal to comment on intelligence-related matters would not be adequate, it is no longer normal or entirely proper to use the stock phrase that has been used for decades in this country—that the Government do not comment on matters of national security.

A debate must take place about the way in which Ministers and officials should speak to the media in such circumstances. Different terms are needed to replace the stock phrase that has been circulating in and around the agencies for many years. I do not claim to have the answer, but there seems to be a slight contradiction in the Government's conclusion about how they should operate at the public interface in future.

The Committee recommended that greater consideration was needed when briefing Ministers and senior officials on sensitive material, to ensure that accurate briefing is given on all the information.

Our greatest concern was that the mishandling of the publication of the Mitrokhin archive detracted from the major achievement of the SIS in exfiltrating Mr. Mitrokhin, his family and the material, together with the successful dissemination of the material to foreign liaison services. The information that we received sped around the world to foreign agencies, which most of us would argue was to the general good of counterintelligence. It is a great pity that the handling of the publication of the archive detracted from that.

I put on record the bravery of Mr. Mitrokhin, who believed that the organisation for which he was working in his own country was betraying the people of his country.

Mistakes were made, and they were admitted. There was no hint at any time in our proceedings that anyone was trying to mislead us in any way. It is important to recognise that nothing happened to compromise national security, no one was put at risk, and there was no deliberate attempt to deceive Ministers or anyone else. No one tried to shirk responsibility.

If, after reading the report, one asks why a certain thing happened in such an organisation, the answer is that it was probably a result of the culture of the organisation. We all recognise the distinctive culture of Parliament or the culture of ministerial office.

It is to the credit of my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary that they asked our Committee—a Committee of parliamentarians who were either elected or, in one case, appointed to the other place—to look into all the details of the case and to report in such an open way. Little was taken out of the report made available to the public. We, and the public, should be grateful for that.

I hope that the confidence-building measures in which we, as the oversight Committee, are engaged with the agencies and with Government organisations, will continue in the future.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is a valuable and respected member of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

I start by expressing my appreciation to the Home Secretary and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for their kind personal comments. I welcome the debate on behalf of the Committee. This is the most important parliamentary occasion of the year for the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we appreciate the fact that it involves the presence of two of the most senior Cabinet Ministers. That is a proper recognition of the importance of the agencies for which they are directly and personally responsible.

It may be a little churlish to make an early criticism. I welcome the debate, and my goodness, we waited for it. The delay in holding the debate is quite unacceptable. The debate after our last annual report took place on 2 November 1998. We hope to produce our next annual report in six weeks.

The present debate is on the 1998–99 report, which was sent to the Government with a letter from me to the Prime Minister dated 6 August last year. The Government took six months to respond. Their response is dated 28 January this year, and now, on 22 June, five months later, we have the chance of a debate. I ask the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, both of whom I am pleased to see in their place, to use their influence to ensure that the next debate is more timely.

As I said, we will submit our next annual report at the end of the summer Session. There should be a real determination for the Government response to be available by the time the House comes back in October, and that we should have the debate when the report is fresh and current. The debate on a previous report was held on 2 November, as I mentioned. I need to put that on the record. The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary will understand why I am doing so, and the Whip on duty may report this to the business managers as well. It is unacceptable that there should be such a time lag.

If I had to choose a text to represent the year's work, it might be a quotation from the leader in The Times after the publication of our report on Mitrokhin. The Times was kind enough to refer to it as

a strikingly successful example of public accountability.

We appreciate that comment.

Against that background, I pay my tribute to the members of the Committee, several of whom are in the Chamber, and to our staff, who support us so well. By the nature of their work, they will not be recognised by name, but their contribution will be recorded elsewhere—perhaps Upstairs, or in the future. We appreciate their work.

Let me comment on Select Committees and the alternative of a different style of Committee. I pay tribute to my colleagues' attendance at meetings of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I read the paper by the Liaison Committee that discusses new arrangements for improvements in Select Committees. It considers punitive measures that perhaps should be available for the Chairman to take against members who signally fail to turn up for Select Committee meetings and are regular absentees. I am glad to say that that has never been a problem for me in the six years that I have been Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. That should be recognised.

I am speaking personally, although I will probably take the overwhelming majority of the Committee with me on the comments that I am about to make. "Overwhelming" may be an exaggeration; perhaps "significant" would be better. I am unimpressed by the suggestion that there is an urgent need for a change. The Times quotation suggests that we are doing something right, and breaking new ground in a way that was perhaps not apparent to the Liaison Committee or the Select Committee on Home Affairs when they prepared their reports.

The Intelligence and Security Committee is a parliamentary Committee; Parliament established us to do our job. There are differences between our Committee and Select Committees. On a previous occasion, the Home Secretary famously destroyed the illusion that because Parliament votes on the membership of Select Committees, they are the product of the free vote of an independent House of Parliament. The selection of some and the exclusion of others who might be less acceptable show that the forces that are at work are pretty close to Government.

It is acknowledged that the Intelligence and Security Committee is slightly different. The Home Affairs Committee's report recognises that we require special arrangements and that we could not be an ordinary Select Committee. If one visits the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and walks down the secure corridor towards the armed guards standing by the door, one realises that it is not an ordinary, free-standing Select Committee. We meet in secret and have secure premises, which are required for our work.

The report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs also recognises that the agencies, for which we have oversight and responsibility, answer to different Ministers and Departments. If one sought to replace the Committee, it would have to be with a single Select Committee. That is common ground between those who advocate a Select Committee. The report had integrity in that it acknowledged that the Intelligence and Security Committee was doing quite a good job. It also recognised that the Committee was evolving, developing and appointing an investigator.

That report was written before we broke new ground with the invitation from the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister to investigate the Mitrokhin affair, with full access to all relevant papers and advice to Ministers. The latter was important, and enabled my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald to ask some difficult questions because we had all the information whereby we were able to reconstruct the paper trail and some of the problems that had arisen.

The calibre of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee is as good as that of the members of any other Select Committee. It comprises many senior hon. Members. Other Select Committees, such as the Home Affairs Committee and the Liaison Committee, tend to write reports as if we were from another planet. Yet some of my colleagues on the Intelligence and Security Committee serve on other Select Committees. I was disappointed that the Liaison Committee, whose Chairman I had approached, did not invite me even to attend a meeting as an observer or to comment to the Committee before it further investigated some of its proposals.

There is much common ground between us. The Liaison Committee report complained about delay in Government responses and suggested that two months should be the norm. I agree; I have just complained about the delay of six months before we got our response. The report stresses the need for a debate on reports. I even found some common ground with its complaint about the inconsistency of Government replies. It stated that some were exemplary and others were superficial. I agree with that. Perhaps the Government will refer to it in their response to the debate.

I have been proud to chair the Intelligence and Security Committee since its inauguration and during its development and evolution, which continues. We need Government support and a proper understanding by them that the Committee is an important bulwark and safeguard for the intelligence agencies and public confidence in them. The fullest trust, confidence and openness by Government is necessary when appropriate to enable us to discharge our duties.

If the Liaison Committee wants to return to the matter—its report said that it might—a little consultation with parliamentary colleagues who serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee might be helpful. We might then be to help the Liaison Committee. I want to put that on record because I do not imagine that the Government have many empty slots in their legislative programme, and I do not therefore believe that the matter will be pursued with any urgency. That could not be justified.

I add the Committee's strong endorsement to the tribute of the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald to those who work in our intelligence agencies. The nature of their work means that it is impossible for people to know the challenges and dangers that they face and the very personal risks that they sometimes run. It is not known that sometimes they have to be moved very quickly, and arrangements have to be made to move them and their families because of imminent threats, perhaps after their identity has been betrayed by others. Those people are dedicated to the security and protection of our country and we owe them a great debt.

I want to put on record my admiration of the leadership that those people receive. I do not exclude from that Sir Richard Wilson, the Secretary of the Cabinet, whose interest in our Committee's work I appreciate. He has attached importance to our work. I also thank the Cabinet Office for its support. I add my personal recognition of Sir Stephen Lander, the Director General of the Security Service, whom I congratulate on his award.

Our appreciation of our relationship with the agencies, and their quality is part of the background against which we work. We require the fullest possible Government co-operation whenever we have to be involved and in whatever work we may have to undertake. We are grateful for the Prime Minister's endorsement and his assurance of that full co-operation in our work.

Our job is to scrutinise, to recognise and respect work that is well done, but not to develop the sort of cosy relationship in which we become apologists for the intelligence and security agencies. The best service that we can do them is at all times to be alert to mistakes and occasions when standards are not maintained and integrity is not protected, and to speak out without fear or favour.

Some hon. Members referred to my public profile. We began with almost total invisibility. The profile has grown, however. It is an important part of our work that the public know that we exist, and can have some confidence that a Committee independent of Government oversees the agencies.

In a recent article about Menwith Hill, one of the criticisms made by a certain newspaper was that it was an incredibly secret place, which no Minister or other Member of Parliament had ever visited. Let me put it on record that the Committee has made two visits, and that a number of our colleagues have made individual visits. Both the fact that such visits are made and the fact that it is known that there are not "secret places" that are off limits for the Committee are important, not just to satisfy us but in terms of the public confidence that they create.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will emphasise that it is he who speaks for the Committee. When journalists telephone its members, they should not be offended when we tell them—to put it bluntly—where to get off, because we simply do not talk. The Chairman talks on behalf of the Committee, and they should always approach the Chairman.

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

As was said earlier, the Committee seeks to maintain the seamlessness—the Government constantly strive to achieve a similarly seamless appearance—that enables it to speak with one voice. Difficult decisions, or judgments, must often be made on what can or cannot be said about certain issues. I am sure that the Home Secretary and others—such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—who have held his post know that the problem is remembering what is public. I hope to take on that responsibility for the Committee when trying to make the necessary judgment, and I hope that we strike reasonable balances.

I have spoken of the contribution that the Committee can make. I am grateful for the support that the Government have given to the developments that we have achieved in the evolution of the system. We take considerable interest in the expenditure of the agencies. I am afraid that the number of asterisks that appear in our report representing the details of that expenditure must be pretty frustrating for the ordinary reader, but every asterisk represents information that we hold as a Committee. We have examined the expenditure involved, and have been able to identify it. For instance, one heading relating to the Secret Intelligence Service relates to the cost of running agents. That is the degree of detail that we examine.

We are grateful for the assistance of the National Audit Office, which was not originally envisaged in the legislation. It has already done valuable work, and I think that its contribution will continue to grow. The investigator to whom the Home Secretary referred represents an addition to that valuable work. I pay tribute to another supporter of the Committee's work—the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who has been very helpful in certain circumstances.

The most recent and obvious evolution of our work is represented by what we did in regard to Mitrokhin. I do not want to add a great deal to what I have already said about our report in press announcements: the hon. Member for Rother Valley has said a fair amount about it, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald drew attention to certain matters of concern. However, I want to stress the importance of putting the issue in context.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) spoke of the need to recognise the successes of the agencies. This has been one of the few instances in which success has been manifest and public. The fact that there has been some confusion about publication, and the fact that there have been some failures in regard to prosecution and other matters, must not be allowed to detract from the overall understanding that this was a remarkable and outstanding intelligence success. I believe that the Federal Bureau of Investigation claimed that it was the largest pool of counter-intelligence material that it had ever received, and the Central Intelligence Agency paid similar tribute to the help that it had been given in the identification of people who had been betraying national interests in the United States and many other countries.

The tributes paid to the SIS' s exfiltration of Mr. Mitrokhin, his family and his material, and the pursuit by the Security Service of a number of the leads that arose from it, mark important and praiseworthy achievements, but we must never forget Mr. Mitrokhin himself—an extraordinary man, whom the Committee had the privilege to meet and interview about his work, and about the remarkable archive that he produced. It has given us an unparalleled understanding of the nature of the KGB and its activities over the years. We believe that there is more material to be published, which will of course be of great interest to those concerned with the history of espionage and intelligence in other countries over recent years.

Nevertheless, the achievements of the Mitrokhin report should not blind us to the fact that mistakes were made in its handling. Lessons must be learned. Those are the principles that guided us. We appreciated the Government's early recognition that mistakes had been made once matters came to light, and we believe that the steps that were taken were appropriate to meet our initial criticisms.

There is one question that I am asked most often in interviews, and on more public occasions. There is a latent suspicion that we do not really need the agencies. Why do we spend nearly £1 billion on them? Did not this world of espionage pass with the end of the cold war?

In the foreword to our 1998–99 report, we referred to the various areas in which intelligence is critical. We referred, for instance, to the need for support for our military forces in actions overseas, and, in particular, to Kosovo. Since then we have seen the events in East Timor and, most recently, in Sierra Leone. We now consider the issues involved in weapons proliferation, and the increasing concern felt in Washington about national missile defence against the risk of missiles and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogue states. The importance of the agencies' task in trying to counter some of those challenges is all too real.

Only yesterday, I read a comment in a defence journal about Kazakhstan, whose Defence Minister has admitted that the country has not the slightest idea how many weapons it has. In earlier days, Kazakhstan had a certain relevance to Soviet missile and nuclear activities. It is now trying to conduct an inventory. The report that I read alleged that 40 Mig 21s had been smuggled to North Korea from Kazakhstan. Admittedly it is an elderly aeroplane, but it is not one that we would wish to become part of the currency of arms smuggling.

To those who say that we now live in a safer world, let me say that the truth is that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and some of its controls, the availability of weapons and access to nuclear and other materials present a threatening and dangerous scenario, and it is vital to have the best possible intelligence to try to prevent proliferation.

So soon after the tragic assassination of Brigadier Saunders, there is no need for me to restate the reasons why international terrorism continues to pose a major threat. I understand that the French football team in the European cup is now having to have special security against a threatened international terrorist attack. It is a continuing threat. The Home Secretary reminded us of Hammersmith bridge and of our own domestic concerns. It is an area in which intelligence and security continue to be needed.

The Committee visited Dover a few months ago. I do not think a single member of the Committee was surprised by the tragic news that came from Dover, having seen the situation in that port and the pressures that exist. Our 1998–99 report emphasised the importance of enhancing intelligence capability against organised crime. We specifically mentioned immigrants as one of our areas of concern.

I touch on several other issues that are of concern to the Committee. I do not want to accuse the two senior Ministers here, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, of breach of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, but there is a publication called "National Intelligence Machinery." It describes the role of Ministers and makes it clear that the Prime Minister has overall responsibility. It then draws attention to the Ministerial Committee on the Intelligence Services. It looks pretty good on paper. I do not think that it looks very good in practice. It might be a good idea if that committee met and had some actual physical presence. It would be a nice gesture, if no more, to the intelligence agencies.

It is not a party political point because the ministerial committee was not known for the frequency of its meetings during the term of office of the previous Government, either. It may interest members of the previous Government to know that the ministerial committee even existed, but it did.

If we are to have ministerial accountability, if it does make sense to have divided responsibility for the intelligence and security agencies, and if the structure is to be such that there is separate accountability, the argument for the ministerial committee meeting must be strong. It could be a valuable exercise. If it met, not necessarily frequently, but at least annually, that would be a significant improvement.

The Committee takes considerable interest in personnel practices in the agencies and in recruitment and retention. I must add one sharp criticism and one complaint about the Government response. Two reports ago, we made a proposal in response to a problem, which is well known, involving Mr. Tomlinson. He complained that he was dismissed from the Secret Intelligence Service and was denied any redress or access to an employment tribunal on the ground that it was impossible to hear the evidence which was said to be too secret to be available to an employment tribunal.

We came up with a fairly simple proposal: it should be possible to set up a special tribunal identical to the normal employment tribunal, but constructed in such a way that it could handle secret matters. The Government accepted that proposal. We have said some rude things in our report—I shall not rehearse them—about the shambles of the parliamentary handling of that. The Home Secretary need not look embarrassed because, as ever, another Department handled the Bill concerned—the proposal was tacked on to the Employment Relations Bill as an amendment.

Having made the proposal, the Committee was never consulted when the amendment actually went in. It never even came through the Commons; it was done in the Lords and came back. However, we were assured that we would be consulted on the regulations. What is pretty outrageous is the Government response:

The Government is therefore disappointed at the reaction of the Committee to this prompt improvement in the rights of members of staff of the agencies.

That was written in January. There was supposed to have been a prompt improvement. It has not actually occurred yet. Regulations have not been introduced yet and there has been no consultation of the Committee. It is a proposal that we made two years ago, so I ask that it be dealt with promptly. The Government said that it was a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, they have not yet done it.

I have referred to areas of expenditure and the assistance of the NAO. We are seeking to give greater information about the cost of the individual agencies; we referred to that in our report. The Government were looking forward to a meeting with us to discuss those matters further. That meeting has now been held. I think that it was helpful. I hope that we will be able to make progress on that matter and that next year's report will be rather fuller in that respect than this year's. We await Ministers' response on that point.

The area of expenditure that we addressed that was of particular concern to us—we got agreement to the publication of NAO reports on the matter—was the cost of the new premises for the SIS and the Security Service, and the substantial over-runs in expenditure that were incurred on both occasions. Although they were past events, we quoted them because we recognised that the complexity and scale of the new accommodation project for GCHQ was far greater than either of those undertakings.

We gave the clearest warnings of our concern, in view of past experience, that the problems should not be repeated and that there would be the closest watch. We were grateful that the response in January says:

During its planned move to new accommodation GCHQ is paying considerable attention to ensuring that degradation of its operating capability is kept to a minimum and that all essential services are maintained.

Later, in paragraph 17, the Government noted

the Committee's endorsement of three guiding principles in the management of the GCHQ New Accommodation Project. GCHQ has sought to ensure that the maximum likely costs have been identified.

They added that GCHQ would

continue to supplement its own project management experience and expertise by the use of contractors and expert advisers. GCHQ—

this was written in January—

understands the need to control costs at all stages … Limits on spending will be set before work commences, and any need for subsequent adjustment will be carefully scrutinised.

The Committee is under no illusions about the challenge that is represented by the new GCHQ accommodation project and its importance. The Committee supports the project going forward, but it would be failing in its duty if it did not put on record its continuing great concern about the matter, of which the Foreign Secretary is aware. I shall not go further into the matter now, but we have continually sought to raise the matter and remain anxious as to whether its seriousness is yet fully recognised.

The two issues that our report says will lead to further work are files, on which we hope to have more to say in our next report—I shall not go into it in detail—and security procedures, which has been a constant theme of every report that the Committee has written. We are concerned about whether the agencies insist on constant vigilance on internal security. The recent events involving laptops are merely an illustration of the problem that we have been continually trying to draw to the attention of Ministers and heads of agencies. We have not had the worst experiences; other countries have suffered worse lapses of security recently. We can maintain that position only by constant attention to this tiresome, time-consuming but critically important role.

Finally, we attach great importance to security and secrecy. The Intelligence and Security Committee seeks to establish the highest standard in its own conduct in that respect. Against that background, let me express a personal view. Obviously, we have concerns about the actions of a former head of the Security Service. It is one thing to publish a book about one's early childhood experiences or happy holidays, but it is quite another to write a book that covers in any detail work or responsibility in this area. It is peculiarly critical in respect of somebody who has been the leader of an agency as it raises concern that other members of the agency might be tempted or attracted by financial reward to do the same. There is a heavy responsibility on a former director-general.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we also have the unfortunate precedent of General de la Billiere's memoirs, which described what the SAS did during the Gulf war? It opened the door to a large number of other books by former members of the SAS.

My right hon. Friend, who was then Minister for the Armed Forces, will remember that well, and I do too. I entirely share his reservations on that point.

A letter to The Times by a former Member of Parliament completely distorted the position with regard to the book by Sir Percy Sillitoe, a former Director-General of the Security Service. The right hon. C. R. Attlee PC, OM, CH, MP, who wrote the foreword to it, specifically said that it was unfortunate that, in the interests of secrecy, Sir Percy had had to leave out the most interesting parts of the book, which would have been of interest to the reader. The letter to The Times gave the impression that he had been allowed to put it all in, when the opposite was the case.

It would be wrong to talk about the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee or the agencies without recognising the importance of our allies in intelligence and security. We have the privilege to meet many of those who work with our agencies and with the oversight committees and we are familiar with those in Washington and other capitals who are part of the intelligence alliance and the parliamentarians in those countries who oversee them. We pay tribute to them, the work that they do and the relationship that we have with them.

In our report for 1998–99 we said:

Our safety depends on good intelligence and security, and it is vital that these agencies are properly maintained and funded in a sustainable way. That is the responsibility of Ministers and those in charge of the Agencies. It is our responsibility as a committee to hold them to account.

Our report describe how we have sought to discharge that task and I commend it to the House.

As the newest and most junior member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, having been appointed in January, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today's debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the most senior member of the Committee, whose style of leadership—and, after all, he does have style—has helped it develop in a way that would not have been thought of at its inception. The right hon. Gentleman has managed to win the trust and respect of those in the agencies and of Ministers, and we should pay tribute to him for that.

I also thank my fellow Committee members on both sides of the House for their help and advice, and the staff who serve the Committee for all their hard work.

I confess that when I joined the Committee I was somewhat sceptical about the work of the intelligence and security agencies, which is a not uncommon reaction given that the agencies have traditionally been shrouded in secrecy. Until recently, it would have been unthinkable to have had this debate, given that until a few years ago the existence of the intelligence and security agencies was not even acknowledged.

As I have learned more about the work of the agencies and have come into contact with many of the people who work for them, I have come to recognise the role that they play in protecting our democracy and the dedicated and professional work that is carried out, often in extremely dangerous situations.

I know from my reaction to learning more about the work of the agencies how important increasing one's knowledge can be in increasing one's confidence in the agencies. Most people in the United Kingdom understand the need for the intelligence and security agencies to operate within a ring of secrecy, but they also want to know that Parliament is making sure that the agencies are not operating outside the law or in any way that undermines our democracy. People need that reassurance, not least because of suspicions that have developed about the activity of the agencies whether as a result of fiction, film, controversy around issues such as files, as referred to earlier, or of allegations by disaffected or former members of the agencies.

Of course, Ministers are responsible for the agencies, but as has been enshrined by the establishment of the Intelligence and Security Committee in 1994, it is now recognised that it is right for elected representatives to be involved in overseeing the work of the agencies. I believe that it is entirely proper to keep questioning the effectiveness of the oversight system that is being set up. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, in the light of experience we need to keep looking at whether the oversight that we have is adequate, and to be openminded about that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am pleased that she has joined the Committee. Obviously, it goes without saying that there is an absolute need for all democracies—and certainly our own—to have security services to protect our freedom and our civil liberties. Does my hon. Friend agree that, had there been parliamentary oversight at the time, it is quite likely that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce would never have been targeted in the first place? The lack of oversight probably played a role in the dirty tricks campaign against Harold Wilson in the 1960s. It is all somewhat alarming and hopefully will end as a result of the introduction of parliamentary scrutiny.

Past suspicions about the agencies' activities led to the establishment of the Committee, to develop an oversight system that works. We must question whether oversight needs to go further, to ensure that such activities never happen again.

Does the hon. Lady accept that whether or not a file is kept on a Member of Parliament is an operational matter that does not come under the existing Committee's remit and probably would not in future?

I will address later the question of how much members of the Committee are told.

Openness and transparency within the constraints of national security are key to building confidence. The Committee should be looking at improving public faith in the system. That is doubly important as the agencies move into areas such as serious crime; drug trafficking; and smuggling—whether of alcohol, cigarettes or people. As the intelligence services work increasingly alongside law enforcement agencies such as the police and HM Customs and Excise and the contrast between them becomes clear, there will need to be even greater emphasis on the services' accountability.

Whether or not the Committee should become a Select Committee is discussed among its members. I believe that as demand for greater openness, transparency and accountability grows there will come a time when the public and Parliament will demand Select Committee status, albeit with the constraints already described. Whatever form the Committee takes, the key question is how much access its members have to information.

Members of comparable committees in other countries—notably the United States—do a different job, so are given more information. The American people have gained more confidence in the oversight of senate and congressional committees not just because those committees are responsible for allocating money to the intelligence agencies but because they know that their members are kept fully informed. They have more information about operational matters—that may cover some aspects mentioned by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton).

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the Mitrokhin inquiry—my first encounter with the intelligence and security agencies—was an enormous step forward in proving that it was possible to give ISC members access to all the relevant information without compromising national security. I hope that experience will lead to greater trust between the Committee, agencies and Ministers.

This debate is an important part of building public confidence in the scrutiny process. I was not a member of the Committee when the report that is before the House today was delivered to the Government 10 months ago. It is a matter for concern that it has taken so long for the report to be published and for it and the Government's response to be debated. The last report was debated 19 months ago and the Committee is now on the verge of completing this year's report. Parliament might feel that the Committee is not reporting back in a timely fashion. It is important that our debates be relevant to topical issues, so I hope that it will be possible for the House to debate future reports more quickly.

The terms of reference of the ministerial committee to which the right hon. Member for Bridgwater referred are to keep under review policy on the security and intelligence services. That provides for some oversight but it may be tricky to achieve that if that committee does not meet often.

Other important reasons for oversight are efficiency and ensuring value for money. The Committee expressed concern about overspending, particularly on the agencies' accommodation. Parliament wants to be reassured that the agencies are using public money wisely. The work of the National Audit Office has been extremely valuable to the Committee.

Duplication should be avoided, however. Paragraph 37 of the annual report notes the appointment of an adviser to improve efficiency within the single intelligence vote and to review joint working and co-operation. As the agencies enter more into tackling organised crime, and in the light of technological developments, the need to avoid duplicating work and to ensure that it is undertaken efficiently will become even more important.

The Committee, with its overview of all three agencies, is in an ideal position to monitor this. The Committee requested access to the efficiency adviser's reports and I am pleased that the Committee has received the first of them, even though it was submitted to Ministers more than a year ago. I hope that future reports will be available more quickly.

Although I have some concerns, I firmly believe that over the years the Committee has been successful in pushing back the frontiers of security and oversight. That could not have happened without the co-operation of the agencies and Ministers. I hope that Parliament will recognise that achievement and will be assured that members of the Committee are always looking to see what more can be done to encourage transparency and openness from our intelligence and security services, without undermining the extremely important work that they do for our country.

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who has been a refreshing addition to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I have only one worry—it is a matter of record that every woman who has ever been appointed to our Committee has been made a Minister shortly afterwards. I do not wish to dampen the hon. Lady's promotion prospects, but it would be helpful if we could make use of her experience for slightly longer.

My right hon. and hon. Friends would wish me to place on the record their welcome for the work of the Committee, expressed in the reports. The reports are important, but the fact that a representative group of Members of Parliament is inside the ring of secrecy, watching and asking questions and maintaining accountability, is at least as important—and, I would suggest, much more important. We have been pressing for the Committee for 20 years and are delighted that it has been set up. As a party, we would prefer a Select Committee, but it would operate very differently from other Select Committees, and Select Committee status would not add to the Committee's ability to do its job. For that, we need to continue improving access to relevant and necessary information, which is a higher priority than changing the Committee's status.

I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Committee. It is a hard-working Committee and, as the Chairman pointed out, the attendance record is excellent. Ill-health is almost the only reason for any protracted absence from the Committee and we never have a problem with the Committee's quorum, as other Select Committees do. I also wish to pay to tribute to the staff, including the investigator recently added to the staff, and to those in the leadership of the agencies, who recognise the value and importance of the Committee's work.

On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I also wish to stress the importance and value of intelligence and the organisations that provide it. Their staff show remarkable skills, dedication and, in some cases, courage in very dangerous situations. Intelligence saves lives; it can prevent or help to end conflict; it affords protection to our forces on active service; it helps to track down organisers of large-scale crime; and it is a shield against threats to our financial system, our communications and information technology, and to democracy itself.

Intelligence gathering can also compromise civil liberties, and it therefore must be controlled by a strong legal framework. It is worth putting on record the fact that, whatever controversy surrounds some of its provisions on information technology, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill will significantly strengthen the legal framework and restraint under which intelligence gathering takes place. That is why, in general terms, we have supported that legislation and wish to see the greater part of it on the statute book.

As well as a legal framework, monitoring and accountability—such as the Committee can provide—is important to the civil liberties safeguards alongside which intelligence and security services must operate. Ministers like intelligence. In my experience, a gleam comes into their eyes as they tell one how valuable a particular piece of intelligence has been. Therefore, there is always a risk that their appetite for intelligence will lead them to underestimate the political risks and the civil liberties downside to an action that they authorised. That is all the more reason why the Committee must exist to provide oversight. For that reason, it needs to be more fully informed than it has sometimes been about what is being done or is contemplated. The Committee is precluded from, and would not normally envisage, examining operational matters, but a decision to embark on an operation or kind of operation may have such important implications that the Committee should be kept informed and should be able to inform the judgment that Ministers make.

Sometimes agencies—I have in mind examples from around the world—have acted without authority, but the greater danger is usually that actions are covertly authorised by Ministers and Governments, safe in the knowledge that they can be disavowed. Many actions, for example, for which the CIA was criticised in earlier decades were not rogue actions by an uncontrolled agency, but covert actions authorised by US Presidents, who did not wish it to be known that they had authorised them. There may be a case for non-disclosure at the time, but such decisions should not be taken by an Executive free from an active monitoring process.

That point leads directly to an issue that arose in the Mitrokhin case. It will arise again in the Committee's work and I particularly wish to draw the Foreign Secretary's attention to it. The greatest difficulty the Committee has in obtaining information, and where intransigence is at its greatest, it arises not from the detail of agency work—when we have to ask about an operational matter that suddenly has wider implications—but from advice to Ministers. Nothing in the British system is more rigorously protected than advice to Ministers. It is sometimes protected more rigorously than operational details.

Without knowing what Ministers were told, and what they authorised, it is impossible for the Committee to give the House and the country the reassurance that they require. The Home Secretary recognised that when he asked us to look into the Mitrokhin case, and that is why the report is thorough and effective. It is only when one sees the original copy of the submission made to the Minister, with notes written on it in his own handwriting, that one can be sure what the Minister knew and what direction he sought to give to events. The Home Secretary's example should be followed in other cases where the central issue is who knew what, and when, and what they did about it.

There is such a blur surrounding the issue of what Ministers' private offices were told, and such uncertainty about whether Ministers were told everything that their private offices knew, that the Committee needs to see the documentation to give the House the reassurance—often readily available in the documents—that the Minister did not know, or did know and recommended appropriate action.

There is no question but that mistakes were made by the Security Service and the Home Office over the failure to consult properly in the Mitrokhin case about non-prosecution, and the handling and publication of the material. In the Melita Norwood case, it is difficult to stomach the idea that someone who sought, from the comfort of Britain, to help the most repressive and murderous regime on the face of the earth to build an atom bomb should escape any penalty for her actions. That explains why there is such widespread public indignation that mistakes made earlier precluded proper consideration of prosecution of that woman when it might still have been possible.

Those admitted errors have totally distracted attention from the most important point about Vasili Mitrokhin's archive. Its production and release was an act of supreme courage by a true patriot, who saw that the KGB was destroying his country and working against the interests of the Russian people, and against democracy and freedom all over the world. The extent of KGB penetration was far greater than was realised at the time in the west, and it was a further remarkable success for the Secret Intelligence Service to have obtained the archive and achieved the safe exit of Mitrokhin and his family from Russia. Those crucial aspects of the case should be brought back to mind, as they were by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the Home Secretary and the Chairman of our Committee. They were the real messages of the Mitrokhin archive, not the mistakes that were made in handling some of the material—even the failure properly to address the question of prosecution. The significance of that archive is the courage of the man who produced it, and the competence and skill of our intelligence service in bringing that material to Britain and making it available for action at home and abroad.

I wish to touch briefly on one or two issues raised in the annual report. One is the employment tribunal issue, to which our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), referred. It was indeed the Committee that stressed the need for a dedicated employment tribunal for the staffs of security and intelligence agencies.

The Government say that they have acted promptly in the matter, but they did not introduce the amendment to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill until it was on Report in the House of Lords. They got it wrong, as they had to admit when they amended the first version that they introduced. Added to that, the regulations have not been produced that would make the tribunal available, which makes the Government's interpretation of the word "prompt" seem ludicrous.

The Government have taken a strange position with regard to the Committee's suggestion that the procedures are pretty draconian. Under them, the applicant can be excluded from the whole inquiry, and may be represented only by a special advocate. In addition, he has permission to make a statement only before the inquiry starts. The exercise of those strict powers ought to be reviewed, and we suggested that the commissioners would be the appropriate body for that.

The Government have discouraged and resisted that option, saying that an applicant could go to judicial review. However, it is absurd to suggest that a possibly quite lowly member of staff would have the resources to go to judicial review to achieve what other people achieve by going to an industrial tribunal. The proposal does not address the gap that the Committee was seeking to deal with.

In their response, the Government said that they would consider whether the operation of powers of exclusion would benefit from involvement by the commissioners. I welcome that, but the Government also said that they would consider the matter in the light of experience. I doubt that there will be much experience to draw on, and I sincerely hope that I am right. We do not expect the tribunal to be taking a case a fortnight. Such cases are supposed to be pretty rare, and we do not want two more to go badly awry before the Government say, "Oh dear, there is something wrong. We had better start again."

We want to get the procedure right now. If there are any more cases that might sow potential difficulties for the future, they must be handled properly and in a way that conforms as closely as possible with the normal approach, based on natural justice, of employment tribunals. That should be the case from the start.

One of the other issues on which the report focuses is the assistance that the agencies could give in dealing with international drug traffic. Some very good work has been done, sometimes in very dangerous conditions, to support the law enforcement bodies in that regard. However, the objective for the agencies in such work never seems very clear, and neither does the proper level of resources that should be devoted to the task.

That is an important matter. The drugs problem and the damage that it does to society are so serious that, if it were clear that a substantial addition of resources could make a great difference, there surely could be no hesitation about finding those resources. The matter would be given a very high priority indeed, but it has never been clear how much of the traffic in drugs could be stopped by the application of extra resources.

Obviously, there is more than one reason for tracking down the traffickers. Drug trafficking is a hydra-headed monster. We can never put all the people involved behind bars, but it is desirable in principle that at least some should be caught and very severely punished.

What quantity of drugs can be confiscated, and what effect can be produced? Will we stop enough trafficking only to raise the street price a bit, or can we stop enough to make a significant difference to the problems in our society? If the difference is to be great, substantial additional resources must be provided. However, I do not think that Ministers have thought enough about what the intelligence effort on drugs trafficking can achieve and whether it deserves considerable resources. I hope that that question will be more clearly addressed.

Similar questions arise with regard to matters such as illegal immigration rackets. Intelligence can play a role in identifying the racketeers responsible for the other day's appalling tragedy in Dover, but it is not the agencies' role to deal with asylum seekers or individual immigration issues. Other agencies handle those matters, and the intelligence agencies have different and more compelling responsibilities. There is potential for co-operative effort to deal with serious organised crime related to immigration rackets, but that potential is limited and the effort needs to be well targeted.

The report also deals with the funding of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. In their response, the Government have indicated that they are reconsidering that matter. The present arrangements slice funds from hard-pressed police forces around the country, and it seems to us that they will never achieve the level of funding that may be necessary for the national and co-ordinated criminal intelligence effort that NCIS must provide.

An issue that figures significantly in the report is the management of major capital projects. After the drastic overspend on Thames house at Vauxhall cross, the GCHQ's new accommodation project was an obvious cause for concern as it is on a much larger scale. Completing it on time, to cost and with no interruption to operating capabilities requires the highest levels of expertise. Clearly, however, the project will not be completed to cost. The Government have stated publicly that new financial arrangements have had to be made, and there must be some doubt about whether the work will be completed on time with no interruption to operational capabilities.

The work of GCHQ is vital. The facility's presence in Cheltenham is strongly supported by the local community, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) regularly reminds me. It needed new accommodation, so the project was necessary. However, I am not satisfied that the project management skill and expertise given to GCHQ was equal to such a large task. It is the biggest-ever private finance initiative, and a huge undertaking.

We have not heard the end of the story yet. The project is of great importance to the effective operation of our intelligence services and involves very large sums of money. If we are not careful, I fear that it will be dealt with by fire fighting rather than by the application of management skills and expertise. The sophistication of those skills goes beyond anything GCHQ or almost any part of Government has had to supply before.

My final point is a general one. The Committee and the House must recognise the danger that management attention in the agencies can be consumed to too great an extent with past mistakes and history. Scarcely a Sunday goes by without newspaper allegations about the agencies, either in the recent past or the very distant past. It is part of the regular Sunday newspaper diet.

Most such allegations have to be investigated, if they are not already under investigation, but some go back a long way. Often there are lessons to be learned, and sometimes stones must be turned over that have not been turned over before. However, agency managers must be allowed to keep their eyes on the ball, and to concentrate their efforts on current and future threats. That is what they are paid for. Their work was recognised in the welcome honours list award to Stephen Lander, and in his reappointment as head of MI5. It has been recognised also in the praise from hon. Members of all parties today.

Past mistakes have to be examined, but the agencies' primary task is to deal with current and future threats to the people of this country, to our democracy and our civilisation. Occasionally, we have to remember that.

I begin by wondering whether any of the defects and omissions in the way in which the security services handled the case of Mrs. Norwood would have come to our knowledge if the Intelligence and Security Committee had not existed. The answer is pretty obvious: little or no such information would have come to Members of the House of Commons.

I say that because I well recall all the arguments endlessly repeated by successive Governments to explain why, given that the Security Service was accountable to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, it would be totally inappropriate to subject it to the scrutiny of a committee of parliamentarians. When I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I pointed that oversight came into existence thanks to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who is now Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). When they took their case to the European Court of Human Rights, it was felt that they would certainly win. As a result, the arrangements regarding oversight by the House of Commons were changed.

I may be considered to be a critic of the security services, but I have always accepted that all democracies need such services. Moreover, even if the terrorism of the past 30 years carried out by the IRA and loyalist groups had not existed, the need for the security agencies is nevertheless obvious. However, we should be under no illusions that all has been well. Peter Wright, for example, defends, or justifies, the state of near-lawlessness in which he operated as a senior MI5 agent, and the dirty tricks—targeted against the Labour Government of the time—for which he, although not only he, was responsible.