Exchange of correspondence between the Chairman of the Committee and the Home Secretary

1. LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN TO THE HOME SECRETARY THE SECURITY SERVICE

  Following our earlier discussion on the matter, the Committee considered at its meeting on Tuesday 3 March the question of its role in the monitoring of the Security Service.

  While it recognises the special nature of the Service's functions, and the role of the statutory Intelligence and Security Committee, the Committee considers that there are nevertheless a range of issues on which it would be possible to take evidence in the normal way. The Committee therefore requests that the Director should attend to give oral evidence to the Committee at a public session.

  I hope that you will be able to agree to this and that our officials can accordingly arrange a date which would be mutually convenient. I look forward to hearing from you.

Chris Mullin MP

Chairman

10 March 1998

 (ii)  LETTER FROM THE HOME SECRETARY TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE THE SECURITY SERVICE

  Thank you for your letter of 10 March.

  I have given a great deal of thought to whether it would be right for the Committee to take evidence from the Director General of the Security Service at a public session. Having done so, I have concluded that this would conflict with the role of the ISC but that you may want to consider having a briefing from the Director General.

  In the Intelligence Services Act 1994, Parliament gave responsibility for overseeing the Security Service (and the other intelligence agencies) to the Intelligence and Security Committee. The ISC, which also comprises members of Parliament, acts in relation to the Security Service and the other intelligence agencies much as Departmental Select Committees do in relation to Government Departments and its terms of reference ("to examine the expenditure, administration and policy" of the agencies) are drafted accordingly. You will be aware that Parliament as a whole has long followed a practice that so far as possible only one Committee—in either House—should have oversight of any one area of Government. I think therefore that it must be for the ISC rather than for your Committee to take evidence from the Director General about the Security Service.

  That said, you may want to consider whether you would want to have a private briefing from the Director General, subject to his agreement and that of the ISC. I know that you would understand that any such briefing would need to be provided, in closed session, in a way which would not prejudice the security of Security Service staff, its sources, its operations or its operational methods. For the reasons I have given above, it would also need to be understood that any such briefing did not constitute formal evidence to the Committee.

  Please let me know if you want to pursue the idea of a briefing.

  I am sending a copy of this letter, together with yours, to the Director General of the Security Service and to Tom King.

Jack Straw

14 April 1998

 (iii) LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE HOME SECRETARY SECURITY SERVICE

  Thank you for your letter of 14 April in response to the Committee's request that it be allowed to hold an oral evidence session with the Director General of the Security Service. The Committee discussed the matter further at its meeting on 21 April. Although the Committee recognises the points you put forward, it is however minded to pursue its request. It does not consider the proposal for a briefing to be a satisfactory alternative to the kind of meeting proposed in my earlier letter.

  Can I suggest that a delegation (comprising a Member of each of the parties represented on the Committee) might discuss the matter with you directly? If you are content in principle with this proposal, then I will ask the Clerk of the Committee to contact your officials to arrange a convenient time to hold the meeting.

Chris Mullin MP

Chairman

23 April 1998

 (iv) LETTER FROM THE HOME SECRETARY TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE THE SECURITY SERVICE

  I am sorry to have kept you waiting for a reply to your letter of 23 April concerning your request that the Director General of the Security Service should give evidence before the Home Affairs Committee. As I explained in my letter of 11 June, Tom King wanted to discuss the matter with me before I replied and I thought it right to do so.

  Having spoken with Tom King, I remain of the view which I expressed in my letter of 14 April that it is for the Intelligence and Security Committee, rather than for your Committee, to take evidence from the Director General about the Security Service. The Chairman tells me that this is the view of his Committee.

  I am of course happy to talk but, for the reasons which I gave in my earlier letter, I think this is the right course and that we should not depart from the well-enshrined principle that only one Committee—in either House—should have oversight of any one area of government.

  I am sending a copy of this letter to the Director General of the Security Service and to Tom King.

Jack Straw

13 July 1998

 (V)  LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE HOME SECRETARY ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE SECURITY SERVICE

  Following your oral evidence to the Committee, on a range of issues, on 20 October, the Committee has been giving further consideration to the matter of ensuring accountability of the Security Service.

  It has decided, at this stage, to accept the proposal put forward in your letter of 14 April, namely that the Committee should be given a private briefing by the Director. It would be convenient to the Committee for the briefing to take place in January, ideally on a Thursday morning.

  It would be helpful therefore if you would invite the relevant officials to contact the Clerk of the Committee so that the necessary arrangements may be made.

Chris Mullin MP

Chairman

29 October 1998