Let me say at once that I am campaigning for effective parliamentary scrutiny of the security services—mainly MI5—and am not questioning the need for such organisations. I accept entirely the necessity for a security service, and that would remain my position even if we were not plagued by the curse of terrorism. To the best of my knowledge, all democracies have some such service, for the same reason as this country does—to protect the security and safety of the state and its citizens.

As we know, the Security Service—that is to say, MI5—has recently been placed on a statutory footing, and I was involved in the proceedings in Committee on the Security Service Act 1989. The Security Service Commissioner makes an annual report to Parliament, to which I am sure the Minister will refer in his reply. I have looked at two of the commissioner's reports, and he states in both that neither he nor the Security Service Tribunal has yet found in favour of a complainant.

The Home Secretary has stated that a Bill will be introduced this Session to place the Secret Intelligence Service—MI6—which is answerable to the Foreign Secretary, on to a statutory basis. However, the Government continue to resist strongly all proposals for making the security services subject to parliamentary scrutiny—hence my Adjournment Debate.

Since the matter was last debated in the Chamber, MI5 has taken on a wider remit. As we know, that organisation—instead of the police—now has the lead role in intelligence gathering and related matters regarding the Provisional IRA and, I assume, other terrorist groups. The ending of the cold war was bound to change the role of the security services both in Britain and in other democracies in western Europe.

The other change that has occurred since the subject was last debated in the Chamber is the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which, as the Minister is aware, recommended that MI5 should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I welcome that, and I hope that many hon. Members welcome it as well, although it is not the Government's position, as we shall learn shortly, that the recommendations should be implemented.

The Select Committee refers to the practice in other countries, where the security services have some accountability to their national Parliaments. They include Canada, Australia, Germany and the United States. Although the Home Secretary gave the impression, in so many words, in his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee that the efficiency of those services had been harmed—although he did not perhaps use that word—I do not suppose that the Governments of the countries to which I have just referred take that view. I imagine that they are perfectly satisfied that the security services are carrying out their rightful functions, but have a degree of parliamentary scrutiny that is lacking in this country.