Who watches the watchmen?
Daniel Korski 1:40pm
In the US, a storm is brewing over Dick Cheney’s alleged role in concealing an intelligence programme from Congress.
Whatever the details of the alleged offence, it raises an interesting question: should oversight of the intelligence community intrinsically be different from other kinds of parliamentary oversight?
Over in the States, Legislators were content to delegate the management of intelligence agencies to the executive until a series of abuses was revealed in the early 1970s, and the House and Senate Committees on Intelligence were set up in 1977. In Britain, however, Parliament has only had scant role in overseeing the intelligence community.
Only nine parliamentarians have the legal authority to pry into the activities of MI6, MI5 and GCHQ and they were only given this right in 1994. They are, however, appointed by, and report to, the Prime Minister on how well the security agencies are performing. The legislators also make a sanitized version its reports available to Parliament and the public.
But the Committee is not a Select Committee of Parliament. It is a committee appointed by the government and housed in the Cabinet Office. Its staff –- clerks and investigators -- are drawn from the civil service, not the parliamentary service. In 2008, a motion was defeated in the House to make the staff of the Committee responsible to the Clerk of the House. (The debate, though, is well worth a read.)
This is important, for it means that there is no parliamentary oversight of Britain’s intelligence activities, only oversight by individual parliamentarians. In this, Britain joins the ranks of Russia, Spain and Brazil in having no parliamentary oversight of its spies.
In the past, the arguments against making the Intelligence and Security Committee a genuine parliamentary committee have been many. Can legislators really be trusted? Would the House of Commons be sufficiently safe to hold hearings and keep documents? Some even argue that it would make little difference since it would have to meet in private anyway. But these arguments, in light of past intelligence failures and government mistakes, seem a little thin.
Former Vice-President Cheney’s missteps may have a beneficial outcome if it encourages a new debate about British intelligence oversight at a time when Parliament is considering how to reform itself. The question -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -- merits a better answer than the one hitherto given.
Previous
dennis sewell
July 13th, 2009 2:31pm Report this commentWhy not give oversight responsibility for intelligence & security to the Privy Council?
The PC is a constitutional oddity without much of a role. The current oversight committee could become a sub-committee of the Privy Council. Another could be set up to oversee MPs' pay and expenses. We'd trust the Privy Council because it belongs to Her Maj and not the incumbent prime minister. Aren't spooks 'Crown servants' anyway? Or did that all change with avowal?
Chris lancashire
July 13th, 2009 3:11pm Report this commentNo, no, no. Not another committee/regulator/commission.
The Security Agencies are responsible to a minister. The minister is responsible to Parliament. That's how it works, and it does work. Don't for heaven's sake set up even more bureaucracy.
Adam
July 13th, 2009 3:12pm Report this commentDennis - Isn't the Lord Voldemort head of the Privy Council these days?
CS
July 13th, 2009 3:14pm Report this commentExcuse my ignorance. Avowal???
Charlie
July 13th, 2009 3:38pm Report this commentThe elephant in the room is do any of the MPs have any relevant experience? As late as the mid 80s there were probably MPs with intelligence /special forces experience who could make an assessment of the spies activities; the late Airey Neave come to mind. Oversight is only of use when those undertaking it have some some practical experience upon which to draw in order to assess the effectiveness of the spies. There are two views of history , the conspiracy or cock up. When dealing with government this often reduces to the conspiracy to hide the cock up.
Ruairidh
July 13th, 2009 4:40pm Report this commentCS,
Avowal refers to the point at which the government admitted MI5 and 6 existed. Before that they pretended they didn't and they had no legal basis.
As far as I know they remain crown servants (they don't for example have the right to strike) despite avowal.
dennis sewell
July 13th, 2009 5:02pm Report this commentAdam
Er...yes, you have a point there.
CS
Until sometime in the 90s, the Government refused to acknowledge openly that we actually had a security or secret intelligence service.
They were disavowed. The process of acknowledging them openly was called 'avowal'.
Olaf Rye
July 13th, 2009 7:25pm Report this commentOh dear, imagine if we had some of the Labour government at intelligence meetings during the Cold War ? They might as well have just invited the KGB to sit in and ask questions. The lack of relevant experience makes a committee of politicians overseeing the work of the intelligence services farcical. Imagine imbeciles like Harman, Balls, or Prescott on such a committee ? The thought, even though hypothetical, makes me shudder.
davidke
July 14th, 2009 8:00am Report this commentMembers of the PC might well be traitors. Quis custodiat....
Serviam
July 14th, 2009 10:24am Report this comment"As far as I know they remain crown servants"
Members of SIS and the Security Service are indeed crown servants. Members of GCHQ are civil servants. (Technically, all civil servants are crown servants, but not all crown servants are civil servants.)
Back to top