Skip to main content

The Law Relating to Security in Great Britain

  • Chapter
British and American Approaches to Intelligence

Part of the book series: RUSI Defence Studies ((RUSIDS))

  • 27 Accesses

Abstract

On 23 July, 1984, in a leading article, The Times declared:

If Parliament’s faith in the secret services is to be repaired, the Government will have, sooner or later, to agree to the foundation of an all-party, joint Commons and Lords select committee on intelligence and security, peopled by senior Privy Councillors.1

Eight years earlier on 19 May 1976 the US Senate established a permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to oversee intelligence activities.2 It did so within a few weeks of the Church Committee3 issuing its final report4 containing 183 recommendations for the reform and reorganization of US intelligence. Subsequent efforts to provide a charter for the US intelligence agencies were bedeviled by disagreement over the emphasis given to the risk of abuse by the agencies. This was perhaps understandable in the light of the history out of which the proposal emerged.5 However to ensure that we in Great Britain have a quieter and less damaging transition from what has been described as the old concept of a ‘totally secret intelligence’ to the new concept of ‘intelligence under the law’6 the security and intelligence services should be made more publicly accountable sooner rather than later. Fundamental to a system of intelligence is public trust.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. But see Roy Godson (ed.), Intelligence Requirements for the 1980’s: Elements of Intelligence (Washington: National Strategy Information Center, Inc., 1979). In particular see ch. 5, ‘Reforms and Proposals for Reform’ by Angelo Codevilla. Professor Thomas Emerson has commented: ‘One is forced to admit, that, in the present political atmosphere, the prospect of effective legislation being enacted by Congress, or by State or local legislatures is remote’ (Political Quarterly, vol. 53 (1982) pp. 273–83).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Also see H. H. Ransom, ‘Secret Intelligence in the United States, 1947–1982: the CIA’s Search for Legitimacy’ in Christopher Andrew and David Dilks (eds), The Missing Dimension (1984) ‘Foreign policy tensions enable the “Trust in honourable men” operational code to be reasserted’ (p. 226).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Eur CHR, Case of Klass, judgement of 6 Sept. 1978, Series A No. 28. See also D. J. Harris, ‘Decisions on the European Convention on Human Rights during 1978’ (1978) Br YB INT L.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See generally de Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th edn, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  5. See D. G. T. Williams, Not in the Public Interest (1965)

    Google Scholar 

  6. and M. Supperstone, Brownlie’s Law of Public Order and National Security (2nd edn, 1981) esp. pp. 307–11.

    Google Scholar 

  7. On the prerogative, see H. W. R. Wade, Administrative Law (5th edn, 1982) esp. at pp. 213–14, and the GCHQ case (1984) 3 WLR 1174.

    Google Scholar 

  8. C. Andrew in an article in International Affairs, June 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See generally on the Official Secrets Acts 1911–39, M. Supperstone, Brownlie’s Law of Public Order and National Security (2nd edn, 1981) pp. 246–58.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Since the establishment of the intelligence committees, leaks regarding covert action have been almost nonexistent. Furthermore, a leak could come just as easily from the executive branch, where far more people — at times over a 100 — are aware of impending covert action. See ‘Controlling The Quiet Option’ by Loch K. Johnson in Foreign Policy (1980) pp. 143 and 146. The Oversight Act of 1980 requires reporting only to two intelligence committees. The Act requires that the intelligence committees of the senate and the House of Representatives be fully and concurrently informed by the executive of ‘any information or material concerning intelligence activities’, including illegal intelligence activities and significant intelligence failures.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 1987 Royal United Services Institute

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Supperstone, M. (1987). The Law Relating to Security in Great Britain. In: Robertson, K.G. (eds) British and American Approaches to Intelligence. RUSI Defence Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08418-0_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics