I believe it is necessary. I don't believe that the arguments that are made that it's redundant have resonance. I think the more eyes on the spies, the better, if you'll forgive my alliteration.
I also think it's important to enhance your ability as parliamentarians to understand the inner workings of the security services so there's institutional knowledge within Parliament itself.
The ideal model in my view is one where there is robust capacity on the part of the parliamentary committee to access the information they need.
If you look at the models that are deployed by the allies, U.K. and Australia being notable examples, there is some variability in terms of how much information the committee can actually extract from the security services. On one level the Australian model is better in terms of the way that it's structured, but it's not all that robust in terms of their capacity to compel the presence of information from the services. I would look as a primary ingredient of any parliamentary committee model for the ability of parliamentarians to access the information in question, subject to, obviously, secrecy obligations then that are imposed on parliamentarians themselves.