Bali

HL Deb 21 October 2002 vol 639 cc1086-97

3.58 p.m.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the terrorist attack in Bali on Saturday 12th October.

"In his Statement to the House last Tuesday, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister set out the circumstances as we then knew them about the blast and its consequences. The most up-to-date information is this.

"In total, more than 180 people of many nationalities are thought to have died in the attack. Of those, at least 120 were Australian. Many Indonesians died. Of the British citizens caught up in the blast, 11 are now confirmed as dead and a further 22 are missing—sadly, presumed to be dead. At least 27 British citizens were injured, a number of whom have been medevaced to Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong. There may be other British injured among the unidentified in intensive care.

"The House joined the Prime Minister last week in sending its deepest sympathies to the relatives of the victims. It is every parent's worst nightmare to hear that their sons and daughters have been swept up in a tragedy. And when bereavement is compounded by having to travel half way across the world to identify loved ones, the experience is truly unimaginable.

"Yesterday we joined with the people of Australia who held a day of national mourning for this, the worst terrorist outrage in that country's history. Here flags were flown at half-mast on Buckingham Palace and on our Embassies and High Commissions around the world. The Australian High Commission is arranging a memorial service in St Paul's on 25th October. The Indonesian Embassy will be holding a commemorative ceremony on 22nd October. The Government will organise a British memorial service. We shall be consulting the families about what they think would be most appropriate.

"Let me now update the House on the action we have taken to assist those injured and the relatives and close friends of all who were victims in this atrocity. The British Honorary Consulate in Bali provided the initial assistance to survivors of the blast, and to victims' relatives. This was reinforced early on Sunday 13th October by the British Consul and then by the Ambassador, Richard Gozney, other staff, and volunteers from the British community. These staff and volunteers have worked tirelessly and I pay my tribute to them.

"However, on Thursday I learnt of complaints by some families that they had not received the service we should have provided. I asked my noble friend Baroness Amos, who was already travelling to Bali, to talk to all the families concerned and to make her own assessment about the complaints. In the light of this, my noble friend apologised direct to the families concerned.

"I reinforced that apology on Friday and would like to repeat it in the House. I am very sorry that shortcomings in getting sufficient extra staff on the ground in Bali early enough last week exacerbated the terrible burden the families were under in any event. As of today, there are 15 British officials in Bali, and 32 British police officers—including experienced family liaison officers and anti-terrorist experts working with the Indonesian and Australian police on the investigation into the attack itself. In London the emergency consular unit established overnight on Saturday 12th October, and working with New Scotland Yard, has continued in operation.

"Last Wednesday, I announced a package of measures designed to help relatives to travel to where their loved ones were being treated, or to where victims had died. The scheme—similar to that put in place after September 11th last year—covers the repatriation of the remains of those who died, and the medical evacuation of the injured.

"The FCO will pay the costs concerned wherever an insurance policy does not already cover them. I decided on these exceptional measures because of the exceptional nature of terrorism, in which individuals are random victims of attacks directed at society as a whole. As for the future, we shall be working urgently with the insurance industry and others to see how between us we can ensure that the pain of victims of terrorism is not made worse by financial hardship.

"Immediately after the Bali attack, we advised against all travel to Bali and all non-essential travel to Indonesia. On 17th October I announced a further strengthening of our travel advice, warning against any travel at all to Indonesia as a whole. I also advised UK citizens in Indonesia to consider leaving if their presence was not essential, and authorised the withdrawal of some dependants and non-essential staff from our Embassy in Jakarta.

"On 18th October we amended our travel advice to other countries in South East Asia, urging UK nationals to exercise extreme caution. Sadly, further attacks cannot be ruled out. In the light of additional intelligence assessed this morning, I am strengthening the travel advice still further by giving additional warnings about threats to UK nationals at specific locations in Indonesia. That travel advice is being issued now. It is available on the FCO's website.

"Let me now deal with questions about travel advice before 12th October. I am placing in the Library of the House the travel advice issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and British Embassy in Jakarta in respect of Indonesia before 12th October, and the equivalent advice issued by the United States and Australian governments.

"Many of the relevant judgments in travel advice of this kind are based upon intelligence. In the light of the atrocity on 12th October, the families and others have asked whether there was any intelligence which could have led us to issue specific warnings against travel to, or staying in, Bali. If I had lost a member of my family I would be asking such questions. Indeed, as Foreign Secretary, it is my responsibility to ask such questions.

"Like everyone else, I dearly wish that there had been intelligence which could have prevented this atrocity and its appalling consequences. But the answer, sadly, is that there was none. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told the House last Tuesday, 'we had no specific intelligence relating to the attacks in Bali'.

"As is now well known, it is the case that there was received in late September a generic threat to a number of cities and provinces in Indonesia, including Bali, but covering altogether 55 per cent of the land mass of Indonesia and 100 million of its population. As my Australian counterpart, Alexander Downer, told the Australian Parliament on 17th October, these threats 'were non-specific and broad based across Indonesia'.

"There has also been a question raised about the Travel Advisory issued by the United States Department of State on 10th October. Let me explain to the House what this was. The Advisory was a 'world-wide caution' of a kind first issued by the United States after September 11th last year. It alerted United States citizens to the need to remain vigilant in the face of terrorist threats. It was revised on 10th October this year following an audio tape broadcast attributed to Osama bin Laden. Issued only two days before the attack in Bali, it contained no reference to Bali, Indonesia or even South East Asia.

"We also received a classified warning to a similar effect from the US on the same day. It too had no reference to Bali, Indonesia or South East Asia. Since our travel advice to Indonesia, last updated in this country on 27th August 2002, already contained a clear warning to travellers to Indonesia about terrorist threats, we judged that there was no case for amending it further in the light of the United States Advisory.

"The United States, Australia and the United Kingdom all received similar intelligence in respect of Indonesia, but making their own independent judgments about this, all came to similar conclusions about travel to Indonesia. None of us had concluded that it was unsafe to travel to or remain in Bali.

"Both as Home Secretary and now as Foreign Secretary I have worked closely over the last five and a half years with all three of our intelligence agencies. Their standard of professionalism and competence is second to none. They pick up literally thousands of pieces of intelligence. These vary from material provided by human sources, that provided by secret technical means and material that is openly available to the public, and sometimes just gossip.

"Terrorist groups operate in secret. They are also often skilled in counter-intelligence techniques and may be feeding false intelligence to compromise a source or direct law enforcement resources to the wrong place. So the raw intelligence has to be skilfully and carefully assessed before judgments can be made upon it. I believe, on the basis of what I have seen, that the correct judgments were made about the available streams of intelligence before 12th October. There were generic threats. There was no information which could have enabled us to warn in advance of this atrocity.

"But, Mr Speaker, I do not want the relatives of those who died in this atrocity, nor those injured, to have nagging anxieties about whether different judgments should have been made. The Intelligence and Security Committee was established by Act of this Parliament to scrutinise the work of our intelligence agencies. Through the Prime Minister, it reports regularly to Parliament. It is made up of senior and respected Members of both Houses of Parliament. It happens that the ISC is at present in Canberra on a long-planned trip. This morning I spoke to the chairman of the ISC, my right honourable friend the Member for Dewsbury, who had just arrived there. I told her that I had asked the Intelligence Co-ordinator in the Cabinet Office to ensure that all intelligence was made available to her committee. The ISC will of course consider this and then reach its own conclusion upon it.

"The atrocity in Kuta was a brutal reminder that the campaign against terrorism did not end with the removal of the Taliban. The reality is that our campaign will take years, perhaps even decades.

"In Indonesia, our immediate aim is to help the Indonesian Government act quickly to deal with the terrorist threat. We are already discussing how we can help through an intensified programme of counter-terrorism assistance.

"My noble friend Lady Amos and the British Ambassador met President Megawati this morning in Jakarta. My noble friend was assured by the president that the Indonesian Government were determined to take swift and decisive action against those responsible for these attacks. President Megawati has already signed an emergency decree strengthening police powers to detain suspects and to enable the courts to make use of intelligence.

"The Indonesian authorities have also taken action against known extremist groups. On 19th October, they arrested the founder of Jemaah Islamiyah, Abubakar Bashir.

"The atrocity in Bali confirmed that our citizens are vulnerable wherever they are in the world. The terrorist's aim is to defeat the universal values of the United Nations of tolerance, freedom and respect for human life and replace them with brutality, fear and ethnic and religious hatred. I believe that the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Howard, captured the international mood when he called on the world to pursue the campaign against terrorism with 'unrelenting vigour'.

"Our grief at what happened is enormous, but our determination is unwavering".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.13 p.m.

Lord Howell of Guildford

My Lords, like all noble Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the detailed Statement made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. At the outset, I want to emphasise—it is hardly necessary—that in no sense do we regard this as a party issue or one to be a matter of debate between the parties. It is much too tragic, big and serious an issue for that.

Furthermore, we appreciate that we must await the return of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, from the difficult mission which she has been performing ably in Bali. As the Statement points out, she has creditably and frankly apologised for certain shortcomings which arose and which we hope will be put right in case they are needed in future.

The fact that the Statement is being made today indicates that certain questions need clarification beyond doubt in both the interests of the public and those bereaved. We on this side of the House fully understand about general or generic warnings, over-reaction to any of which plays into the hands of terrorists. Moreover, when one is dealing with thousands of items of intelligence, it is virtually impossible to expect open and public warnings to tourists and everyone else each time a rumour or warning comes through. It may be a hoax or even intended to achieve a result without a real incident taking place.

I welcome the setting up of the inquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope it will be swift and that we in your Lordships' House will have an opportunity to debate it. Nevertheless, I want to press some questions and I hope that the noble Baroness will have no difficulty in answering them.

First, are the noble Baroness and the Foreign Secretary in the Statement dismissing completely, beyond all doubt and peradventure, that there ever was a CIA briefing two days before the events in Bali—that is, on 10th October—which mentioned Bali as a target and urged night clubs to be avoided? That was a widespread report and I hope that it is untrue. If it is untrue, could the Minister once again confirm that in none of the reports she has mentioned was reference made to night clubs or to Bali? If there were a report, it would be almost specific.

Secondly, will she confirm that on 9th September warnings were given in general terms to US nationals about the Bali region? Was it stated that the area was becoming high risk, but were they, too, regarded as insufficiently specific to merit further action? Were there warnings, as has been suggested, that six specific islands in the Indonesian archipelago of 6,000, which included Bali, were about to be a target? That would be specific and one would like to hear a firm and definitive answer, removing all the nagging worries, which the Statement rightly mentions.

Thirdly, are any lessons being immediately drawn about the procedure for issuing travel warnings? Will they be revised? Fourthly, will the Minister confirm that the Jemaah Islamiyah, apparently a vicious group, is currently proscribed in this country? If not, is the intention now to do so?

The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, when in Bali mentioned the thought of setting up a permanent disaster relief team which would be mobilised in such instances, which I fear may be repeated. Will the Minister assure us that we will be able further to examine that idea, perhaps when the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, returns? We would like to see how it might shape up and develop so that we can all learn lessons from this horrific atrocity in the grim knowledge that the likelihood is that it will happen again.

Finally, I note—and I believe that I will have the Minister's agreement—that the atrocity was committed not so much against Americans, two of whom were slaughtered, but against the citizens of the free and open world generally; Australians, Swedish, British and many other nationalities. Does that not confirm that the horrific attack on New York and Washington on 9/11 was not just an attack on quirks in American foreign policy—not something that could be put right by a sudden change in Washington's policy approach—but an indication that we are dealing with a world-wide murderous assault associated in some ways, rather sickly and unfairly, with Islam against the entire pattern of liberal values of the civilised world? We must therefore be on our guard everywhere and anywhere, as never before, to defeat such killing and evil.

Those are the comments I want to make and I should be grateful if the Minister could answer my questions.

4.19 p.m.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. First, I should like a brief assurance that the papers to which the Minister has referred will be placed in the Library of both Houses. I assume that they will be.

We all share the shock of what happened in Bali. I am one of the hundreds of thousands of British people who have been with their families on holiday in Bali in recent years. It is an extremely popular holiday spot. The island is heavily dependent on tourism. One consideration as we judge our appropriate response to this incident must be that we do not want to ruin the economies of such countries by banning Western tourists from going there.

We appreciate that it is possible to criticise the Government's response in assisting relatives of the victims for not being fast enough. However, in such circumstances it is always difficult to provide early assistance. We are grateful to the Government for the efforts that they are now making to assist those who are affected.

We on these Benches recognise that there is always a problem with intelligence in terms of "noise". One receives a huge amount of information and a number of unspecific warnings, and one has to sort out which are the most serious. I attended a conference in Washington in mid-September with Indonesian and Singaporean participants, who said clearly that we had to recognise that their countries were at risk from terrorist groups. That is clearly stated, but it is difficult to say when, how, what, and under what circumstances.

There are unavoidable risks in an open, global world for all who travel around. We need to remember our own experience. London was for many years a pretty unsafe place to visit during the IRA campaign. Manchester and Birmingham were not entirely safe either. I have a vivid memory of my son and many of his classmates being trapped in Westminster underground station when the IRA launched its mortar bomb attack on No. 10. We should have been extremely upset if at that period a number of other governments had issued warnings to their citizens that they should not under any circumstances visit the United Kingdom.

We should also have received protests from the United States if, in the year when a number of British tourists visiting Florida were attacked and one or two were killed, the British Government had issued instructions that no British tourist should visit Florida. We have to be very measured in our response. We must recognise that under these circumstances one cannot guarantee that all tourists will always be entirely safe.

It is very important not to shut the developing world off from the developed world. That would be partly to grant the terrorists' aim: to close down our open world and to encourage a divide between the rich world and the poor.

The Statement refers to our immediate response. I want to ask the Minister about the thinking as regards our longer term response. The Statement says that our campaign will take years, perhaps even decades. It seems important, therefore, as in Northern Ireland, to have a strategy which is not simply one of counter-terrorism. It should deal also with dialogue, with building better relationships between potentially hostile communities and between different religions—between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland—and with building links between the developed world and moderate Islam. Do the Government have such strategies under discussion?

Finally, mention was made of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We welcome the attention that the Government are now giving to that. Have they considered that now may be the time to make that committee—which to some extent hangs in limbo between government, the executive and the legislature—a formal Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament? That would make it clearer that it is part of the normal processes of parliamentary accountability.

4.24 p.m.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their measured responses to the Statement. I want to say how pleased I am to hear the noble Lord, Lord Howell, say that this is not a party-political issue. As he said, it is far too tragic. I thank him for his kind words for my noble friend Lady Amos—who is indeed working in very difficult circumstances and learning the lessons of the last few days.

As the Statement indicated, we presently have some 15 diplomats in Bali. They have not all come from Jakarta; they have been drawn from around the region. We have drawn on the expertise of those available in the region in our attempt now to get the best support that we can to the families.

I thank both noble Lords for the way in which they handled questions of intelligence. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is right: it is difficult to discuss these matters openly. Some intelligence may be there for hoax purposes; it may be there deliberately to direct attention away from the real intentions of groups of terrorists. I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he dealt with the issue.

The noble Lord raised the question of the swiftness with which the ISC will report. As he would expect, that is a matter for the ISC. I imagine that it will want to deal with the matter fairly quickly, although that is for the committee to decide. I shall draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends in another place.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked whether it is time for the ISC to become a formal Joint Committee of both Houses. Again, that is a matter for the committee itself to consider. However, I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends.

I turn to the questions raised about intelligence. Given what the noble Lord said about understanding the sensitivities involved, I know that he will understand if I cannot always go into as much detail openly on the Floor of the House as might be possible in other circumstances. That said, there has been no attempt to dismiss any of the briefing. The warning, referred to on a number of occasions, from our friends in the State Department on 10th October was what is called a world-wide caution. I have the papers in front of me and they do not mention Bali. I am happy to show that to the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, at the close of these exchanges, but they will also find them in the Library.

The reference is not specific to Bali. It makes the point about giving Americans warnings, including facilities where Americans are generally known to congregate, such as clubs, restaurants, places of worship, schools or outdoor recreational events. But it does not relate that to Bali or to Indonesia, as my right honourable friend's Statement made clear.

The noble Lord raised questions in relation to 9th September. Again, I am happy to show the noble Lord the United States' advisory of that date. It is a very general advisory and it does not refer to Bali. Again, I have it in front of me and I am happy to show both noble Lords the statements, which I hope will reassure them on those points. Where there were references to particular places in Indonesia, as I hope my right honourable friend's Statement makes clear, these were of a very general nature in intelligence terms. I am sure that when the ISC has the opportunity to look at that, it will be able to bear out what I am telling the House.

Turning to questions of procedure in general, both noble Lords raised questions about how we deal with such appalling incidents when they arise. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, mentioned, my noble friend made reference to attempting to get some standing arrangements in place. I hope that the Statement has made clear that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary believes that we ought to have further discussions with, for example, the insurance industry about such arrangements. We believe that it is important to consider what we might be able to do in terms of being able to get people with particular expertise in these terrible and appalling atrocities to places very quickly to help bereaved families and those waiting for information. We are talking about a particular type of skill in terms of counselling. We are examining ways of trying to take that forward.

Jemaah Islamiyah is not proscribed in the United Kingdom as yet, but, as the noble Lord would expect, this matter is under urgent consideration. I agree with the noble Lord when he talks about a "world-wide murderous assault". Yes, it is. As my right honourable friend said in his Statement, it will take years to try to come to grips with this kind of terrible, indiscriminate terrorism. Indeed, it may even take decades to defeat this sort of terrorism. However, as the Statement made absolutely clear, we shall be unwavering in our determination so to do.

I return to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. It is, of course, important to deal with this situation in a number of different ways. Yes, we can do so through dialogue. The noble Lord is right to suggest that it is important not to cut off certain parts of the world. However, it is also most important to keep our own citizens as safe as we can. Therefore, the role of the intelligence services in sifting the information that we have is vitally important in making our own people safe, and, as the noble Lord indicated, ensuring that the passage of commerce, travel, and exchanges round the world is kept as intact as possible. There are many causes of terrorism in the world. We must do our best to tackle them at all levels.

4.31 p.m.

Lord Hurd of Westwell

My Lords, perhaps I may join my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in thanking the Minister for repeating a very full Statement; and, indeed, for the supplementary answers that she has just given. The noble Baroness's remarks about the long-haul situation surely sum it up. Does she agree that we are entering a period where there will be no such thing as total knowledge or safety? That applies especially at the present time when the Middle East and Asia are awash hour by hour with rumours, secret reports, and secret meetings. As Mr Alan Judd, who is very experienced in these matters, powerfully pointed out in the press yesterday, not even the most distinguished of intelligence services can be confident that they will be able to differentiate between fact and fantasy.

I have a specific question for the noble Baroness about warnings. Does she agree that the Foreign Secretary has a particularly difficult task here: on the one hand, there are the obvious immediate dangers following this appalling atrocity but, on the other hand, he has to bear in mind what sometimes gets forgotten in immediate comment; namely, that in all these countries there are thousands of deeply-rooted British citizens? I have in mind India and Pakistan, which received such warnings in recent months, and now this has happened in Indonesia. However, this applies everywhere else. I am referring to people who are trading, teaching, or helping to develop aid projects, and so on, who are actually well-rooted in those countries. As the noble Baroness said, they have the right to be given specific warnings.

Many of those people would then be in a good position—indeed, better than anyone else—to make up their own minds about their future plans. If they all packed their bags and left because of a general danger, does the noble Baroness agree that that would cause deep damage to this country and to the countries where those people live? Indeed, would she also agree that that would be a substantial second success for the terrorists—that being exactly what they have in mind? Is this not an important part of the balance that the Foreign Secretary has to strike?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, who better understands the situation than many of your Lordships, and who speaks with the experience of his own period in office. It is particularly true to say that now there can be no total knowledge and, therefore, no total safety as regards what is going on in the world. I stress to the House that it is up to citizens themselves to check with the Foreign Office over travel advisories, which do change on a daily basis. One cannot always rely on all parts of the travel industry to pass on such information. However, many in the industry do so, and are extremely conscientious in that respect. It is also the responsibility of the travelling citizen to acquaint himself with those travel advisories.

The Foreign Secretary has the unenviable task of distinguishing between what may, on the one hand, be pure gossip, and, on the other, a hoax, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Howell; or, indeed, what may be a substantial threat. He approaches that task on the advice of the intelligence community. I agree with what the noble Lord said about the thousands of British citizens living overseas, who have intimate knowledge of the countries within which they live. Where we believe that specific warnings are credible, they should be delivered to those citizens through the Foreign Office travel advisories. But if everyone tried to leave a country all at one time that might pose very particular problems, especially if we are talking about difficult outlying regions.

However, I say this with a certain caution. Although none of us wish to do the terrorists' work for them, it is also very important that we do deliver as speedily and as accurately as we can what we genuinely believe are real matters of concern for those either in a certain country or travelling to such a country.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that excellent Statement. Does the noble Baroness agree that terrorism now is miles easier to accomplish than it was in the days when the Viceroy was assassinated in Phoenix Park, when the Tsar was murdered, or when Gabriel Princip killed Franz Ferdinand? Moreover, the damage that it can do now is far worse to human life and to our surroundings. One of the consequences of the Bali bomb to the people of that island has been the ruination of their economy. They will suffer far worse because the damage will last for much longer.

I do not intend, or mean, to sound callous, because my words could be interpreted in that way. Australians, or English people, can go clubbing elsewhere. But the people in Bali will suffer. If they continue to suffer economically, they will become a further feeding ground for terrorism. However, that is an observation, not a question. In view of the increase in international terrorism and the fact that it looks as if Ireland might be going mildly pear-shaped yet again, is the Minister satisfied that the intelligence services have the money, the intellectual resources, and the intelligence people behind them to do the best that we shall undoubtedly demand of them?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, of course, with the explosion in international travel and the ease of communications, the ability to obtain the means to cause terrible physical damage is far greater now than some years ago. However, we also have electronic communications on the side of law and order. We are able to trace a great deal of what is happening in the world. In his Statement my right honourable friend spoke of the ways in which we are able to gather intelligence, in a very general way. Those, too, are very much more sophisticated than they used to be. In addition, we now have the ability to look at DNA that may be left at the scene of some of these apalling crimes in an attempt to track down who is responsible. The noble Earl is right, but our ability to track down these people has also improved and our determination to do so is absolute.

The noble Earl said that the consequences for Bali are far worse. As a parent, I cannot imagine anything worse than losing a child in such an atrocity. It is about the worst human tragedy that could befall any of us. I am sure that the noble Earl will agree. However, I take his point about the consequences for Bali in terms of its economic future and security. It is enormously important that that is addressed. I hope that we will be able to discuss that further with my noble friend Lady Amos when she returns.

The noble Earl asked whether I am satisfied that the security and intelligence services are properly resourced. They are resourced as well as Her Majesty's Government can currently provide. These issues are under constant review. I know from my period of close association with the intelligence services that there is always more that one can do with additional resources; that is axiomatic. I am confident that the Government's emphasis on obtaining the best possible service is also constant.