Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
2 NOVEMBER 2004
RT HON
DAVID BLUNKETT
MP, MR DESMOND
BROWNE MP AND
MR JOHN
GIEVE CB
Q40 Mr Clappison: Can I ask how you assess
the current threat to the United Kingdom and if you are prepared
to venture any views on Iraq, as to whether or not our continuing
involvement in Iraq increases the threat to the public here?
Mr Blunkett: On the first, the
level of threat has remained for some time. We gave a specific
promise that were that to change we would ensure that people were
aware and that, where there was a very specific threat, we would
tell people what that specific, identifiable threat was, as we
did when we had the threatened attack on Heathrow. On the issue
of the threat from Iraq, we believe—and we have seen this
with the kidnaps in Afghanistan, as we have with Iraq itself—that
those who are causing the greatest havoc in disrupting the efforts
at security and stability in Iraq are very substantially not Iraqis
but people from outside the country.
The Committee suspended from 3.52pm to
4.04pm for a division in the House
Q41 Mr Clappison: You were saying—I
think you would have widespread support in this—that problems
in Iraq were being caused by people coming in from outside and
trying to disrupt the rebuilding of the country. Can I draw you
into another aspect of this and see what comment you would like
to make? There may be a linkage between what is taking place in
Iraq and an increased risk of terrorism in this country. That
is a concern which you will bear in mind, is it?
Mr Blunkett: If the situation
in Iraq was to deteriorate and troops were to be pulled out by
partner countries and therefore Iraq, as with the Taliban in Afghanistan,
became a host country for training and giving succour to those
terrorists, Iraq would become the foundation and the base for
greater risk. What puts us at risk at the moment is precisely
those people who are not located and fixed in a functioning country
but often on the fringes of areas, as with the border of Afghanistan
and Pakistan, where it is very difficult to get to them. It is
that loose, franchise network that constitutes al Qaeda that we
are taking on worldwide.
Q42 Mr Clappison: Turning to a departmental
question on this, spending on counter-terrorism is due to rise
by 40% between 2004 and 2007 but, for very understandable reasons,
it is not subject to the same detailed, public scrutiny as other
areas of expenditure are. Is there anything you can say about
guaranteeing that the taxpayer is getting value for money on that?
Mr Blunkett: Wherever we can,
we do demonstrate where the money has been spent. For instance,
the £84 million addition this year that we put into policing
we identified £50 million of going into Special Branch activity.
Where we have increased the budget of the security service—and
we will have increased their capacity by next year by 50%—the
ISC, the Intelligence and Security Committee, have oversight of
what has happened there. They scrutinise and then produce their
report. I think it would be fair to say both transparently, where
that is possible, and behind the scene where that is not there
is proper scrutiny.
Q43 Mr Clappison: You adverted a few
moments ago to some of the things which have happened in other
countries. Can I ask you about EU cooperation against terrorism
and what in your view are the most significant aspects of EU cooperation?
Mr Blunkett: There was the declaration
this last March on combating terrorism. We have been discussing
as part of the five year work programme for the Justice and Home
Affairs Council making this real in terms of the coordinator doing
the job of coordination, rather than going off on an independent
tack, of ensuring that Europol strengthens its own activity, that
the sharing of information within the bounds of ensuring that
our own security and intelligence services are not put at risk
is undertaken in a way that is positively helpful in tracking
people across Europe and across boundaries and of course the way
in which we can learn lessons from what has taken place elsewhere.
For instance, being able to follow through rigorously on what
was learned by the terrible attack in March in Madrid.
Q44 Mr Clappison: Will you give priority
to ensuring that this all translates into practical effect and
in particular, on the EU plan of action proposals by the Commission,
are you confident they will have practical effects?
Mr Blunkett: If the coordinator
does the job well and there is a clear focus on delivery, as with
terrorist financing, for instance, we can do the job together.
We cannot rely on other countries protecting us but we can collaborate
together to make a joint effort, given that we are at risk across
the developed world. That is why joint exercises are so important
and we have been working very closely with the French. Next spring
we will be working very closely with the United States.
Q45 Mr Clappison: How confident are you
that there are adequate controls on use by US authorities of details
of airline passengers passed on to them under the EU/US agreement?
It is quite understandable that the United States would want that
agreement but how confident are you on the controls?
Mr Blunkett: I am now. My Christmas
and New Year, as for the Transport Secretary, were made a misery
by the difficulties that we had in the early stages. I can say
these things now because I am not interfering with an election
which is currently taking place elsewhere. The truth is that in
understandably introducing that, where there were warnings, we
had to sort out with the American authorities that the information
was requested at an appropriate moment, that when it was requested
it could be received in a suitable format, that it was going to
be collated and used effectively. We now have that. I have been
very grateful to Tom Ridge, as homeland security secretary, who
worked very closely with myself and with the Transport Secretary
in the United States, with Alistair Darling, to achieve that.
Q46 Chairman: The European Parliament
is still opposed to that treaty, is it not, partly because things
like credit card details of passengers may be passed to the US
authorities and not be subject to the same data protection as
we would have in this country? Are you saying that since the European
Parliament decided to oppose this agreement in June there has
now been a tightening of agreement on these things?
Mr Blunkett: The European Parliament
were objecting, the individual nation states and ministers are
painfully aware of the importance of this. Both the G8 and the
presidency next year will want to make sure that we have common
standards and that is why the issue of the proper use of biometrics
will be very important.
Q47 Mr Singh: In 2002-03 less than 1%
of those stopped and searched under the Terrorism Act were arrested
and the vast majority were charged with crimes unrelated to terrorism.
Are you confident that the police are not using their powers under
the Terrorism Act to go on fishing expeditions?
Mr Blunkett: We set up a working
group deliberately—it has met 15 times since it was established
in July—to make sure that we look at the issues around stop
and search and the engagement with the community, setting standards
and engaging people in believing it is good for them, not some
sort of fishing trip or trawl which is just deliberately intended
to disrupt the community. Where that engagement with the community
has been effective, for instance, in south London, it has also
engaged the cooperation of the community itself. It is fair to
say that the statistics that come out need to be measured by the
number of charges of activity under other Acts, not just the Terrorism
Act. Therefore, half the arrests have led to charges under other
measures.
Q48 Mr Singh: The number of Asians stopped
and searched under the Terrorism Act last year as against the
year before is three times the increase in the number of whites
stopped and searched. Given the low number of arrests for terrorism
related offences, what have you done to ensure that the police
are not antagonising the Asian community, whose help they probably
will need to track down terrorists?
Mr Blunkett: Firstly, to ensure
that they are engaged in that review that I have described. Whatever
people feel about the issue of providing a note on stop as well
as search, it is an absolutely key tool for reassurance within
the community but also to provide intelligence based activity
on precisely what the stop as well as the search are being used
for and what can be learned from it. Secondly, we have issued
new guidance on the section 44 powers which became particularly
controversial, to ensure that the police are using these in appropriate
circumstances. I am prepared to take any other sensible action
that does not disrupt the police doing their job but reassures
the community that this is about focused and targeted activity.
It is inevitable, as it was in north London and in parts of Birmingham,
that if you are engaged in following through with those who are
using host communities as covered, you will be engaged in counter
terrorism stops and searches in stopping more of those people
who are from that host community with a particular religious as
well as national background. We had that in terms of the Irish
community in the 1980s and we have to try to get over that now
in terms of the Islamic community in Britain.
Q49 Mr Singh: We are doing an inquiry
next week into the impact of the threat of terrorism on community
relations and social cohesion. What is your assessment of that
impact?
Mr Blunkett: I think it is varied
enormously across the country. There has been a degree of fear
that has been raised inevitably for the reasons you have enunciated
which we need to overcome by engaging the communities affected
in the solution. We as a government are engaged at the moment
across government in looking at how we can improve what we do,
both in terms of public services but also liaison in what might
be called civil society to get to the roots of this. I have not
come across anyone who has a very clever answer. We all have a
perspective on the problem. I want to put on record the commendation
of the British Council of Muslims, the way in which they have
been working themselves and with us in terms of providing that
reassurance, the household bulletin that they put out, the work
they did in terms of the tragic capture of Ken Bigley and the
way in which they worked with us in looking at ways of overcoming
some of the problems you have identified.
Q50 Mr Singh: Finally, you will do everything
in your power to ensure that the Muslim community as a whole is
not scapegoated because of terrorist threats, from the few?
Mr Blunkett: Yes, we are absolutely
clear about that and have been from the beginning which is why
I am coming back to the issue I raised three years ago which was
one of protecting people from incitement to religious hatred and
to ensure that we provide the protection that we would all expect
for ourselves.
The Committee suspended from 4.15pm to
4.25pm for a division in the House
I did intend to say we have now a community
safety forum set by the Association of Chief Police Officers,
working with the Muslim community and we are also working alongside
culture, media and sport with the Society of Editors on avoiding
misleading betrayal or a misuse of words which adds to the problem.
Q51 David Winnick: Home Secretary, you
have dropped the idea, have you not, of issuing a combined passport
and ID card? You have made that clear. It was not such a good
idea?
Mr Blunkett: We have accepted
the recommendation of the Committee. We are a listening government.
We respond to those who have sensible things to say and the draft
Bill was precisely to get people engaged with the practical issues.
I am very pleased about that. It obviously has meant that we have
had to reconfigure the presentation of those elements which require
publication of a separate card. It might be helpful if I say a
word about that. We will be publishing a regulatory impact statement
alongside the publication of the Bill following the Queen's Speech.
At that time, we will be able to tell the House more about the
actual detail of funding. I thought it would be helpful, given
misleading statements that were made last week, to indicate the
configuration. The biometrics will be part of the development
of the passport system over the next three years. That development
of secure passports which is essential now for travel, not least
to the United States where otherwise it will cost an individual
$100 a time to obtain a visa and six weeks of considerable wait
to do so, will enable us to be able to demonstrate the taking
and the use of the biometric and the cost of the passport and
then the cost of the ID card which will go alongside it. The cost
of the ID card element will be the database and the ability, as
again recommended by the Committee, of people to be able to monitor
the access to that database and to check their own details and
question with the Commissioner—that we have also agreed
to expand as recommended by you—to be able to determine
what is being accessed on that database and by whom. The cost
of that therefore will run something like this: £415 million,
we estimate, by 2008-09 for the development and delivery of the
whole of the cost of the biometric passport and £85 million
for the annual cost of running the card system alongside it. That
will mean a charge roughly—we will confirm this with the
RIA, the impact assessment—around £70 for the biometric
passport and £15 for the card combined together. However,
we have yet to determine what the cost should be of a separate
card where people do not require a passport and whether we should
put the two together so that if you had a passport you would get
a card automatically, but do you automatically get a passport
if you get a card? I want to come back to that when we publish
the Bill.
Q52 David Winnick: Those broadly will
be the figures, not finalised but pretty near what you believe
you will be able to tell the House later.
Mr Blunkett: A lot of work has
gone into that with our consultancy working alongside us in both
reconfiguring the presentation to take account of the separate
issue of the card and to take account in the future of concessions.
Again, we will obviously have to deal with concessions when we
publish the Bill.
Q53 David Winnick: Presumably, if this
idea goes through, if Parliament so approves, pensioners, for
instance, will get them free?
Mr Blunkett: We are committed
to reflecting low income and, as you know, we have provided free
passports for those born before 2 September 1929 so at the moment
the over 75s have a free passport. Other people, including those
on low income, do not get a concession at the moment for a passport
so any concession we make in relation to the combined scheme will
be a bonus for them.
Q54 David Winnick: Which will add to
the overall cost to the Treasury.
Mr Blunkett: I have included an
estimate for concessions in the figures I have just given you.
Q55 David Winnick: As regards going from
the voluntary to the compulsory stage, the Committee as you know
said that instead of what you describe as the super affirmative
procedure, if there is to be the transition from voluntary to
compulsory, primary legislation should be used. What objections
would you have to that?
Mr Blunkett: Simply because we
are making a principled decision—and I will not wish to
mislead the House when we present the Second Reading—that
we believe a mandatory card is necessary and will be the way to
be effective. We agree with the Committee on that. The difference
between us is whether, having made that principled decision, an
affirmative order before the two Houses of Parliament, a debate
on that order—I am very happy for us to build in a commitment
to an extended debate compared with the usual affirmative order
timing—would be the sensible way of determining whether
Parliament felt at that moment it was appropriate to move to the
mandatory system.
Q56 David Winnick: There is so much involved
in the principle between a voluntary and a compulsory identity
card that, for the latter, the compulsory one, it should be necessary
to have primary legislation. Have you totally closed your mind
to that?
Mr Blunkett: I do not want to
mislead anybody. Yes, I have, on the grounds that the purpose
of developing the scheme on a voluntary basis to begin with—ie,
at the time when people renew their passport -is to build up a
critical core. We reach a point where Parliament can make a judgment
as to whether the tests have been met, the ones we set out when
we published the draft Bill in terms of the technology, the financing,
the acceptability and the likely effectiveness. At that point,
Parliament will be able to say yes or no and they will only be
saying yes or no to that question: have we reached the threshold
and have we passed the test?
Q57 David Winnick: I suspect there will
be quite a lot of controversy over whether or not primary legislation
will be used or should be used. Time will tell. The Committee
recommended that the national identity scheme commissioner should
have oversight of the entire scheme. Can you confirm that the
commissioner will have access by law to the security and intelligence
services relating to the matter we are discussing?
Mr Blunkett: We have agreed that
the commissioner will have overall oversight. We have accepted
that recommendation. The issue of the commissioner's oversight
as opposed to the intercept and surveillance commissioner's oversight
is one which we need to resolve. My own immediate instincts are
that we need to be able to present the work of the intercept and
surveillance commissioners in a way that is understandable to
people because they do report publicly. They do check on what
the security and intelligence services have been authorised to
do in a way that is unique across the world. I am very happy to
come back to that when we reach the debating stage.
Q58 David Winnick: Will the commissioner
report directly to Parliament?
Mr Blunkett: The commissioner
will publish his report and will of course be accountable. I am
sure this Committee would wish to be able to engage with him or
her.
Q59 Janet Anderson: If we could turn
to the reliability of biometrics, the BBC carried a report on
21 October that there was a 10% failure rate for facial recognition
in your biometric tests. You did not accept that, even though
I understand this figure is in line with a report prepared for
the Home Office by the National Physical Laboratory. The UK passport
service trial was expected to last six months from its delayed
start in April. When do you expect to publish the results to enable
an informed public debate to take place?
Mr Blunkett: They were wrong because
we are talking about two entirely different things. The survey
the BBC referred to was a German survey of the physical technology
and its recognition of facial imagery at airports and elsewhere.
We have not been testing that in terms of our biometric test.
We have had 9,460 people through testing. The challenge is in
terms of putting people through those tests, the acceptability
of them, the difficulties where there are physical problems for
the individual or age or ethnicity problems purely in relation
to the iris of the eye. We delayed final publication of the results
because they wanted a properly assessable test for disabled people,
recruiting 1,000 people with disabilities of different sorts to
test that out, not least to refute what has been said in terms
of epilepsy and other areas. Why we are doing this is precisely
to see what the difficulties and challenges are of adding a third
factor in terms of facial recognition, fingerprint and iris recognition
in order to provide that security.
| 
