HL Deb 13 February 2003 vol 644 cc819-27

3.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"Mr Speaker, since Tuesday there has been an enhanced level of security throughout the capital. As the Metropolitan Police said in their statement made on behalf of all those engaged in this operation, this was likely to be most visible at Heathrow Airport.

"At the request of the operational services, it was agreed that, as in the past, the armed services could be called upon for preventive and protective measures.

"It may help the House if I set the events of this week in the context of what was said in my Statement on 7th November. It may be helpful to the House if I recall key points.

"As I made clear, we face a real and serious threat. We know that Al'Qaeda will try to inflict loss of human life and damage upon us.

"That is why we have explicitly pointed to some of the most obvious risks such as transport infrastructure. And why the Government have taken a range of measures to improve public protection.

"The House will forgive me if I quote the most relevant passages of that statement: 'Aviation security measures remain at an enhanced level following the attacks on September 11th and the government keeps these measures under constant review. From time to time additional protective steps are being taken, and will continue to be taken as the situation demands'. "And it continued: 'where threats are specific, we seek to thwart them. Where they are general, we seek to analyse them, and take whatever response we believe to be necessary to ensure the protection of the public'. "This is precisely what we have done this week and will need to do from time to time. If the situation were to change I would inform the House. If there are specific incidents, as tragically in January with the death of DC Oake, I would come hack to the house.

"But I do not believe that it is responsible to provide a running public commentary from the Dispatch Box on every end and turn—any more than previous governments did over 30 years when facing the threat from the IRA.

"As with those governments, our view is that we must do nothing to undermine the work of the police and security services. We have to make fine judgments which must ensure the safety of sources of information. The terrorists must not be able to assess what we know and how we know it.

"We must give the public the information they need to protect themselves and others. That is what we have done. But we must also avoid frightening people unnecessarily or causing the kind of economic and social damage that does the work of the terrorists for them. The public must be alert but not alarmed.

"That is why I have consistently—and again this week—facilitated confidential briefings for the Shadow Home Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

"Finally, let me again pay tribute to the work of our police, security and armed services. We owe them our deep gratitude for their continued vigilance, courage and professionalism".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.31 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which is a little short on information and a touch dismissive of genuine concerns. We fully support the action taken by the Government this week and we wish to praise the work of the members of the emergency services and other agencies who risk their lives in order to keep us all safe. That includes the intelligence gatherers and their organisations, whose job it is to keep one step ahead of the terrorist.

People are understandably concerned at the images they have witnessed on television and in the newspapers. That is why it is essential that the Government keep people as fully informed as possible about the current situation, consistent always with the sensitivity of the information.

I agree with the Home Secretary that information to the public should be designed to alert awareness but not to alarm. It is entirely understandable that detailed security sensitive information that would either play into the hands of the terrorist or put lives at risk should not be made available. However, it is possible for governments to make public statements, especially to Parliament. that fall short of these concerns and set the context for the level of threat which will enable as near everyday life to continue without undue alarm.

The words of the right honourable John Reid were extremely unhelpful and alarming in three respects. Here was a highly respected member of the Government and a Privy Counsellor speaking to the world media, which tended to give the message perceived authority. Secondly, Parliament was denied an opportunity to hear a formal statement on the recent security threat until a PNQ was tabled in another place. Thirdly, to what extent was Dr Reid accurate? That question certainly resides in the minds of those who saw and heard it.

I am aware that Privy Counsellor briefings are given to key members of the Opposition parties. That must of course continue, but loose talk from Cabinet Ministers in public is extremely unwise.

My other concern, which is highlighted by the Statement and by the current security alert, is the state of emergency planning. We are expecting a draft emergency planning Bill. Where is it? Ministers promised that a leaflet was being prepared for delivery to every home in the country, offering advice on what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. Where is it?

There is no coherent central control. The National Audit Office report, Facing the challenge—NHS Emergency Planning in England, published in November, revealed that the NHS is ill prepared to cope with terror attacks or disasters. Dr James Robertson, who drew up the report, warned that an incident with 500 or more casualties would "seriously challenge" the NHS. One in four major hospitals and one in three ambulance services are "not well prepared". What is being done in response to that NAO report?

Furthermore, a new report, Risk: Improving government's capability to handle risk and uncertainty, published by the Prime Minister's own Strategy Unit on 20th November, found that the Government have a "fragmented approach" to dealing with emergency situations. It said that Ministers need to be, more open, more transparent and more participative". in communicating risks to the public.

In July 2002, the Defence Select Committee published a report which found there to be "real deficiencies" in the Government's preparations for a possible terrorist attack at home. Even the chairman, Bruce George MP, said: We do believe that there has been a lack of grip and direction on the part of central government. We are concerned that central government has not responded to the scale of the complexity of the challenge posed by international terrorism". Who is responsible for domestic security in government? There is a vast array of individuals, bodies and committees in Whitehall involved in protecting our country. John Prescott was recently made the leading spokesman for homeland security. I believe that position now rests with the Home Secretary.

The Prime Minister is in overall charge of intelligence and security matters. The Home Secretary is responsible for the Security Service. The Foreign Secretary is responsible for the Secret Intelligence Service and the Defence Secretary is responsible for the Defence Intelligence Service. There is also a ministerial committee on the security services.

David Omand was appointed to the post of security intelligence co-ordinator and permanent secretary.

Noble Lords

Oh!

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, will someone tell me why I am out of order? I am referring to the heightened state of security against a possible disaster from a terrorist attack. The preparation and readiness of this country to respond is very much a part of this Statement and why the PNQ was asked in the first place.

The post was designed to, enhance the capacity at the centre of government to co-ordinate security, intelligence and consequent management matters and to deal with risks and major emergencies should they arise". The public are concerned. This is our only way to let them know whether the Government are ready.

Finally, would it not be better to have a dedicated homeland security chief, with support and powers to address a situation that is clearly urgent as a result of recent events and this week's security alert—not to replace the bodies to which I have referred but to co-ordinate and focus attention on protection of the home front in the face of a serious attack.

I implore the Minister not to interpret what I and my colleagues have said. This is not a call for security sensitive detail, nor is it, as the Statement says, calling on the Government, to provide a running public commentary from the Dispatch Box on every end and turn". It is a call for Parliament to be given appropriate and timely information and for public assurance that as much forward planning and preparation for terrorist attacks as is needed is in fact either complete or in hand.

3.37 p.m.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I echo the support for the police, the Army and the intelligence services for their work over the past few days.

In the Statement the Minister said that we should not be given a running commentary on every aspect. However, there has been a great deal of concern at seeing Schimitar tanks based at Heathrow without a great deal of information being presented at the time. After the missile attack on the aircraft leaving Kenya there will obviously be speculation about the vulnerability of civil aircraft. Furthermore, although we are not asking for a great deal more detail, information should be given to Parliament because there will be a vast amount of speculation in the press.

I have one or two questions. First, will the Home Secretary have urgent discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about how best the public can be kept informed and how they should respond to those seeking further information?

My second question is equally important considering the parlous state of many local authority's finances. Will the Minister make sure that local government has the necessary resources for a civil response to the situation? I hope that the Minister can say whether he is satisfied with preparations made by local authorities, especially those on the flight path around Heathrow. Can he also say when the Government will bring forward the long promised civil contingency Bill?

3.39 p.m.

Lord Filkin

My Lords, I am happy to answer many if not all the questions that have been raised, starting with the criticism of my right honourable friend John Reid. Anyone who read the newspapers with care would be perfectly aware that John Reid was responding to an allegation from a journalist that the deployment of several hundred police and Army personnel to Heathrow had been done as a PR stunt by the Government. That seems to me such an outrageous question from a journalist that I am not in the slightest bit surprised that John Reid used clear and strong language to affirm that this was a real issue, that these were real threats and concerns, and that these were real troops. He did that in a shorthand and graphic way. It would have been irresponsible not to have made clear that this was a real issue. It was regrettable and lamentable that that question was asked and even had to be responded to.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear.

Lord Filkin

In terms of the previous discussion in the House, we do not intend to appoint a chief of homeland security because we already have one—the Home Secretary. He chairs the relevant Cabinet committees, which have met on numerous occasions since 11th September; and he is responsible directly for the main elements of the work to counter terrorism, the Security Service and building resilience against terrorist threats. The Home Secretary chairs the Civil Contingency Committee and its two main sub-committees. He is supported in that structure by Sir David Omand, who has the role of security and intelligence co-ordinator across government.

When the head of US homeland security, Governor Tom Ridge, came to discuss with the Home Secretary in November our preparedness and theirs, he said in short that in a vastly different constitutional situation—a federal United States with a population of 280 million—they were seeking to put in place arrangements that were as robust and strong as the British situation.

Given that we have covered those issues before, it is surprising that the question is yet again being raised. I shall reflect, perhaps in quietness, on why it was raised when we have given clear and strong answers.

In light of 11th September, any government would have been grossly irresponsible if they had not sought to review every issue of structure and operational practice in government and all their other agencies because all our understanding of the scale and potential of threats was transformed by that event. I will not go into full details for reasons that the House will understand, but part of that review was carried out by Sir David Omand last summer. It looked in part at the structure of Cabinet committees, to ensure the clearest operational command within government and police forces—which have immediate, direct and clear responsibility for these measures.

In broad terms, I am happy to give the House the assurance that while we are not the slightest bit complacent and are aware of the unpredictability of attacks that may affect us, we have looked thoroughly at the structures of government and operational matters and they are strong and in good order. But one must never be complacent. That does not mean that we can have total security, when it is so easy for something to be done in an open society of our size and vulnerability. But we have looked at the issues responsibly.

We will bring forward an emergency civil contingencies Bill in good time. If the matter were of extreme urgency, we would have brought a Bill forward urgently. At this point in time, it would make some necessary improvements but they do not go to the heart of preparedness to be able to rebut a terrorist threat.

There is not a fragmented approach within government. It is clear and strong and the leadership of the Prime Minister and Home Secretary seems to me and to the public to be clear and strong.

The first priority, as I hope we have made clear, will always be the security of the public. Those measures will drive us. But the state has to strike a balance between giving information to the public so that they can make their own mature judgments about how they respond—particularly if there were to be a specific and direct threat—and not giving succour and help to those who wish to damage this state by helping our opponents to be better placed to mount a terrorist attack on us. I do not say that in any cheap way to hide behind a smokescreen in responding to appropriate questions in the House.

There will always be, as there should be, questions about how detailed operational matters could be further improved. Mention was made of the National Audit Office. Some of those measures are under active consideration but if we thought that they were in any way weakening significantly our ability to rebut a terrorist attack, we would act immediately and expeditiously to deal with them.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the public are not foolish. The public are intelligent. They are aware of what happened on 11th September. They know that the state must do all it can. They know that none of us can provide a guarantee of 100 per cent protection. Therefore, we have made it absolutely plain that when there is a clear, specific and direct threat, the public will be told and we will act. When intelligence sources reveal the possibility of a threat, we must act with measure by putting in place arrangements to increase our resilience and protection against any possibility of attack while not closing down the economy and the society that we hold dear and must sustain in the face of threats.

I remind the House that such threats are not new. The scale may be new but we have been seeking out and countering the threat of terrorism to our society for 30 years. Under the previous government, the threat of the Provisional IRA was real and ever present. There has been pressure on government to refine their mechanisms and to do their utmost to defend society against those attacks and others.

We increased resources for local government this year. Local authorities have adequate resources to do their job and a responsibility to protect the citizens in their areas. Most local authorities already do that well. I would be foolish to think that every local authority in the country has perfect contingency plans. Further work will be done by the Government in partnership with local authorities to ensure that they are as robust as they should be in the interests of their citizens.

3.48 p.m.

Lord Carlile of Berriew

My Lords, to reassure the public that there is a continuing, proportional and informed reaction to information about the possible threat of international terrorism, will the Minister tell the House what progress is being made to reform Special Branch in response to the recent report by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Mr. Blakey, which set out important proposals for the security of the public?

Lord Filkin

My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question but I shall respond to the noble Lord in writing in 24 hours.

Lord Burnham

My Lords, reservists are being sent to the Gulf and regulars are being retained at home because reservists are not allowed to partake in measures designed to alleviate the effects of the firemen's strike. Can the Minister give an assurance that the same does not apply with regard to security measures and that reservists can be used in full, where required, for the purposes of security? Secondly, what was the security state on Monday?

Lord Filkin

My Lords, as the noble Lord implies, we are facing a number of potential threats and problems at present. Without going into detail, I have discussed the issues with relevant officials and I am confident that the police and the Armed Forces are capable of coping with all the emergencies currently facing us. Therefore, I can give the assurance that the noble Lord sought.

As to the security state on Monday, I think that we have gone to sleep. Again, I will respond later to the noble Lord.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, every Member of the House is aware that the state of security fluctuates from time to time. We can all observe when there has been such a fluctuation on entering the House. We may not like what we see, but we accept it because it protects us. Did the Minister see the early television newscasts last night when reporters were with members of the public in the approaches to Heathrow? Every person who was asked said, "I do not like this much, but I am glad that they are looking after me". That was their basic response—before the newspapers got to put a spin on the whole matter.

Lord Filkin

My Lords, I regret that other duties meant that I did not see the early evening news, but the noble Baroness has put her finger on the issue. Members of the public are not foolish; they know the risks they face. They have the greatest respect for our security services and our police in making operational judgments in such respects. They know that there is not total security; but they know that those responsible are striving their utmost to provide protection. Individual members of the public then make their judgments on how to behave in those circumstances. I am sure that the security services, police and the armed services appreciate the support given for their efforts and would compliment the public for their common sense.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important that there is sufficient information so that the general public are not unduly worried by the whole situation?

Lord Filkin

My Lords, one must treat the public as mature, intelligent and adult. We have a highly educated, literate and commonsense public, who, especially in London, have experienced living with those threats for 30 years. They do not like it but they know the reality and recognise that if they gave in to every possible anxiety, they would cease to live their ordinary lives and our society would collapse. That does not mean that we give them every element of possible security information that raises or lowers the security threat assessment. We cannot do so for operational reasons. Two reasons apply: first, we would divulge our sources, which would weaken our protection; and, secondly, we would generate a constant neurosis that would be out of proportion to events.

It will have been absolutely apparent to the public that a heightened state of alertness has existed as a consequence of a heightened security risk assessment by the Metropolitan Police during recent days. I cannot believe that anyone in the country who watches the media or talks to any other person would not be aware of that. On Monday, we remained at a heightened state of alert. It has been a long-standing policy not to give details of alert states, which is no doubt why I could not remember the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord.

The Earl of Sandwich

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most important sources of intelligence is the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad? Does he further accept that in the Middle East context it would be a grave error to place too much reliance at this time on those sources?

Lord Filkin

My Lords, I shall not comment on security sources.

Forward to