Proposals outlined by Nick Clegg on Tuesday and by the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, on Monday, designed to make MI5, MI6, and GCHQ, subjected to more effective scrutiny are welcome.

But unless they are closely monitored - and questioned - they could well end up giving the appearance, but not the reality, of greater accountability.

The Liberal Democrat leader's speech to the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), and article in the Guardian, contained most pertinent points, notably that while the internet and the huge growth of electronic communications may have made the task of the security and intelligence agencies more difficult in pursuing threats, modern technology allows them to intercept vast quantitites of personal data without any proper control.

"It is not enough for the agencies to claim that they accurately interpret the correct balance between privacy and national security: they must be seen to do so, and that means strong, exacting, third-party oversight", said Clegg.

He said that in future the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) should be chaired by a member of the opposition (it is now chaired by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former Conservative foreign and defence secretary).

He said there should be a right of appeal against decisions by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which considers complaints against the use of intrusive powers by the intelligence agencies and there should be "greater transparency" in its work.

Clegg said two existing offices - the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner - should be replaced by a single Inspector General for Britain's intelligence agencies, with reinforced powers, remit, and resources.

These are easy targets - their failure to hold the spooks properly to account was evident well before the revelations of the former US National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden.

The two commissioners Clegg referred to are chosen from a group of former senior judges with meagre resources at their disposal. Their reports are as thin as their credibility, as even senior members of the security and intelligence agencies privately admit.

Sir Mark Waller, the Intelligence Services Commissioner, devoted just one brief paragraph in his annual report last year to the Snowden revelations.

"In so far as matters related to my area of oversight, which is the only area where it is appropriate for me to comment", he said, "I have discussed matters fully with senior officials within GCHQ and I am satisfied that they are not circumventing the legal framework under which they operate".

After repeatedly refusing to appear to answer questions about the Snowden leaks and other counter-terrorism issues, Waller has now been summoned to appear before the Commons home affairs committee.

The IPT meets in secret and does not tell complainants whether they have been targeted by the spooks or not.

The performance of these institutions make a mockery of claims by the foreign secretary, William Hague, that Britain's oversight procedures are effective and stronger than those in other countries.

Clegg's proposals will be debated by the LibDem spring conference in York later this week. On Tuesday he left unanswered serious questions, including the matter of who in future would appoint the members and chair of the ISC (now, the prime minister's approval is required).

Clegg also announced he had asked RUSI to set up an "expert panel to review the use of internet data for surveillance purposes".

However, he said no decision on making the spooks more accountable would be taken until after next year's general election. The clear implication is that the RUSI panel - whose membership must also be credible - will not report until after the election.

Clegg spoke at a pre-planned event, a day after Yvette Cooper proposed similar reforms, including replacing the outdated Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act drawn up in 2000 and seemingly designed to create loopholes for the spooks and those ministers, notably the foreign secretary, constitutionally responsible for their activities.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group, Liberty, said on Tuesday: "It is good to see politicians waking up to concern about privacy in particular, and hopefully our rights and freedoms more generally." She warned: "But no political party has a monopoly over this and the reforming rhetoric of the pre-election trail is soon diluted in office."

That warning seems most apt.