| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): Never.
John Reid: I saw that coming.
I was explaining all the elements that make the terrorist’s unfettered intention of mass destruction more difficult too cope with than ever before. One essential element of threat is intention. To match that unfettered destructive intent, modern science has, tragically, also offered a potential for almost unlimited destructive capability, the other essential element of threat.
The means of mass destruction have been around for quite a while, but when they are linked with unfettered intention, unconstrained by conventional legality and morality, and with unlimited destructive capacity, we begin to see the size of the new threat that we face. We do not face that threat alone, of course: attacks in places as far apart as Bali, New York, Egypt, east Africa, Madrid and—only this afternoon—Mumbai show, if any illustration is needed, that no community or city is immune. The director general of the Security Service, speaking to her counterparts in the Netherlands last year, pointed out that, as the threat is global, protecting our friends is also a way of protecting ourselves. That is, I think, the point made by the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick).
We must,
and do, work closely with other countries, and with their intelligence
and law enforcement agencies, in combating the terrorist threat. It is
essential for us to think globally as well as acting locally. The plain
fact is that a snippet of intelligence, whether it is gathered in
Kirkuk or Kabul, can lead directly to action here on our streets to
prevent an atrocity. That is the nature and extent of global terrorism,
and that is the global response that we need.
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) (Con): The Home Secretary has spoken of our relationships with other Governments in the fight against al-Qaeda. How central to our fight against al-Qaeda is our current relationship with the Government of Pakistan?
John Reid: It is extremely important, because of our ties in history and Commonwealth, because of the number of people with a Pakistani background in this country and because of Pakistan’s proximity to some of the most difficult parts of the world in which international terrorists are operating. Afghanistan sits next to the western and north-western territories of Pakistan. All that means that we must work internationally in Afghanistan. We must work closely with President Musharraf and his services there, and we must also deal with domestic problems here, or indeed in Pakistan. We have received a great deal of support from President Musharraf. I had the pleasure and privilege of meeting him last year to discuss a range of issues, and I cannot overestimate the importance of our relationship with Pakistan when it comes to these matters.
I had several other pages to which to refer and several other issues to raise, but as I see that my right hon. Friend at the other Dispatch Box, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) is eager to speak, and as I may have spoken for a little longer than I should have yesterday, I am more than willing to end my speech now. Perhaps I can deal with the other matters by responding to questions later—and the Minister for the Middle East will wind up the debate.
Let me end by saying that, however much we rely on our intelligence and security agencies, as we should, we ought to remember—as I am sure we do—that defeating terrorism is not simply a job for the Government, the security agencies or the police. Just as the intelligence and security agencies work on behalf of the whole community, the whole community must be involved in defeating terrorism. Given the unity and endurance that have seen our people through so many difficult times in the past, I believe that terrorism will ultimately be defeated. But the struggle will be long and hard and wide and deep, and in the midst of that we will rely more than ever on the men and women who work so hard and in such a dedicated fashion in our intelligence and security services.
Royal Assent
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the next speaker, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:
Electoral Administration Act 2006
Leicester City Council Act 2006
Liverpool City Council Act 2006
Maidstone Borough Council Act 2006
Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 2006
Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 2006
Intelligence and Security Committee (Annual Report)
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
6.40 pm
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): I join the Home Secretary in offering our condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the outrage in Mumbai.
I am tempted to continue by referring to the Home Secretary as my right hon. Friend, as he just referred to me, but we would probably do each other equal harm. A cosy consensus may break out, but I think not. However, I do join him in welcoming the annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is a thorough and wide-ranging report that raises several crucial issues. It is a fair reflection of the objective and serious manner in which the Committee, led by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), approached its scrutiny of the intelligence and security communities.
The House knows that I have some trenchant views—although I am probably in a minority in the Chamber—on the structure and powers of the Committee, and I shall say more about that later. However, I wish to put on the record that I do not, for one moment, accept the accusations made on “Newsnight” last night. The Committee is doing its job to the best of its very great ability.
I also join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the work of the intelligence and security agencies. As the Committee’s report highlights, the threat from international terrorism remains serious and sustained. It comes not only from al-Qaeda, as the Home Secretary pointed out, but from its associated networks, dissident groups in Northern Ireland, Iranian state-sponsored terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and foreign espionage. We are all too familiar with the events of July last year—but it is thanks to the efforts of the security and intelligence services, as the Home Secretary said, in combating those diverse and complex threats that there have not been similar attacks both before and since then.
I have to break the cosy consensus on the issue of the Government’s response to the Committee’s comments on the combination of the post of the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and the security and intelligence co-ordinator. I defer to nobody in my admiration for Sir Richard Mottram, with whom I have worked on several occasions, but the ISC raised a substantive point and I hope that the Home Secretary will look at it again, in slow time, perhaps before the next Committee report arrives.
The Committee also reports that the Government have recently concluded a study into the impact of new technology on interception of communications. The report was agreed between the Home Secretary’s predecessor and the Opposition in response to our call for the use of intercepts. As the tragic events just over a year ago demonstrated, terrorists will stop at nothing to inflict death and destruction on their enemies and innocent members of the public alike in the name of their cause. In combating that threat, we must consider all possible measures to detect terrorist suspects and to bring them to justice.
Two weeks ago, I wrote to the Home Secretary urging him to review the prohibition on the use of evidence from UK-warranted interception in our courts, as I also did with two of his predecessors. It is vital that our courts system has the tools to convict and lock up terrorists. Intercept evidence could also alleviate the need to lock up terror suspects arbitrarily or to impose control orders, by bringing them into the justice system on an evidence-based basis.
The previous Home Secretary claimed that
“the use of intercept will not result in our being able to prosecute more terrorists”.
“would endanger sources, damage relationships with foreign intelligence agencies or expose highly sensitive techniques”.
I do not accept those arguments.
From the briefings that the Homer Secretary’s predecessor made available to me from representatives of GCHQ and other interested parties, I am convinced that the obstacles to the use of intercept in our courts are not insurmountable. I have come to the conclusion that every problem can be overcome. The Government’s own terrorism adviser, Lord Carlile, says that intercept evidence would be “very useful”. The Metropolitan police say that it makes us look
“a little bit foolish that everywhere else in the world is using it to good effect”—
but we are not. More than a year after the attacks in London, we are still in the absurd position in which intercept evidence from foreign jurisdictions is admissible in our courts, but evidence from our own agencies is not.
The Home Affairs Committee has said that
“outside the Government, there is universal support for the use of intercept evidence in the courts. The Home Office has not produced convincing evidence that the difficulties are insuperable”.
The last Government review—the fifth in 10 years—maintained the prohibition. Since 7 July last year, the Government have conducted another review, which the Committee tells us is now complete.
John Reid: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. My predecessor told the House on 2 February that the Government are committed to finding a possible legal model by which we could provide the necessary safeguards to allow intercept material to be used in evidence, and I have some sympathy with that point of view. The Home Office is carrying out work on two possible legal models. The right hon. Gentleman said that he understood that that work had been completed, but that is not my information. The two models are the so-called public immunity plus model and the examining magistrates model. My understanding is that the work is due to be reported to Ministers in November—I asked about the matter before I came to the House today—so it is too early to say whether a workable legal model can be devised. I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point that this is an important issue, but it is also very risky if we get it wrong. Although it sounds as though it is a lot of time to spend on the matter and even if we were disposed to look on it with an open mind, we would have to be certain that we were not opening up the service and its operations to risk.
David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for that extremely useful intervention. The examining magistrates model was proposed in the first instance by the Newton committee and we supported that argument as it appeared to be the most robust. I agree entirely that we should not take risks in that area, but on the basis of legal advice from outside the Government—as well as the Government’s commentary—it appears to be achievable. People as eminent and knowledgeable about the issue as Lord Lloyd, for example, think that it is a tenable and achievable aim. I look forward to the Home Secretary returning to the House at some time soon with a conclusive answer on the issue.
The Committee’s report has a section on the Serious Organised Crime Agency. One of the aspects of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 that many criticised at the time of its passage was the absence of a single UK border police force. What Lord Stevens referred to as our “porous” borders have an impact on all the targets dealt with by the agencies covered by the Committee—organised crime, espionage and terrorism.
“the threat from espionage remains...Several countries are actively seeking British information and material to advance their own military, technological, political and economic programmes”.
For almost a century, foreign intelligence services have used large movements of people, especially refugees, as cover for inserting their agents. There is also the now well understood threat of foreign terrorists entering the country illegally.
The failure of the Government to get a grip on illegal immigration, the now famous admission by the Immigration and Nationality Department’s head of removals that he does not have the faintest idea how many illegal immigrants are in this country and the Home Secretary’s description of the IND as “not fit for purpose” demonstrate a serious weakness in the Government’s strategy to keep out those who would do this country harm. As the example of one of the suspects wanted in connection with the attempted bombing on 21 July last year showed, there are also problems monitoring people leaving the country. Despite his photograph being distributed to ports and airports, he was able to escape to Paris and then to Rome.
If the Home Secretary is really serious about protecting our borders, he will look again at introducing a single border police force. The Metropolitan police have called for one, the former head of the Association of Chief Police Officers has called for one and the Home Affairs Committee called for one more than five years ago—but just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister rejected those calls. If there were a single force, combining the expertise of existing agencies to prevent foreign terrorists entering the country or to detect suspects leaving the country, the burden on the security services would be lower in the first place.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary
announced in his statement that a Cabinet-level Committee would work on
measures to reduce alienation. However, the ISC reports that another
ministerial Committee, the Intelligence Services Committee, has met
just once in the past 10 years. That raises a serious problem about
ministerial oversight of national security. Currently, a vast array of
individuals, bodies and committees are
involved in protecting the security of this country, but no single
Minister is charged solely with overseeing those bodies and countering
the terrorist
threat.
By virtue of his wide range of responsibilities, the Home Secretary always has a lot on his plate, and he has admitted as much himself. Much of that work is urgent, as the recent crises over foreign prisoners and other matters have shown. It is impossible for him, or for anyone in his position, to focus entirely on security issues. That is perfectly reasonable, and it is why we have long proposed that a single, Cabinet-level Minister should focus solely on counter-terrorism and national security. I understand that that proposal now has the support of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.
The Prime Minister has rejected our proposals again, saying that the present arrangements work well, yet the simple truth is that they do not work well, or not well enough. The speed of progress in the prevention and detection of terrorist attacks is slower than we would like. That is not a reflection on the Home Secretary or his predecessors; it is more a reflection on the system that is in place. Until we have a single Minister whose sole focus is defeating the terrorist threat, improvements to the security services and to our resilience arrangements will not be as rapid as they could and should be.
I have paid tribute already to the excellent work of the ISC, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Torfaen. With limited resources, it performs its task admirably, but no one could imagine that its report on the events of 7/7 could match the 550-page report produced by the 9/11 commission. The time has come for the powers and remit of the ISC to be expanded, to match its task’s heightened profile and difficulty. By increasing the ISC’s powers, Parliament could ensure full scrutiny of the work of the intelligence and security services while maintaining the necessary secrecy that surrounds their operations.
I last asked the Home Secretary about these matters in May, when he responded that the ISC’s scope, remit and statute were defined by the previous Conservative Government. That is correct, and I am touched that the right hon. Gentleman values that Government’s actions so highly that he wants to maintain the status quo. However, I think that the Government accept that we now face a new and more sophisticated threat. It is only right that the ISC’s role should develop to ensure that that threat is met in the most effective way possible.
The ISC was created in the mid-1990s. It was envisaged then that, as the Committee acquired the confidence of the intelligence and security communities, it would evolve towards being a Select Committee of this House, rather than an appointed Committee of the Prime Minister. I urge the Home Secretary to consider those proposals, to ensure that our security services perform their vital role to the best of their ability and under the best possible scrutiny.
Mr.
Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I was
present at the debates on the Bill setting up the ISC, and that the
then Conservative Government strenuously opposed Opposition amendments
that would have made it a Select Committee. It was
made
clear to us that under no circumstances would that happen. If he is
departing from that position, that is something to be
welcomed.
The shadow Home Secretary is suggesting that the ISC’s role should be extended, and no doubt the Government will wish to consider that, but would not that require greater parliamentary accountability than we have at present? Obviously, ongoing operations could not be considered, either in private or in public, by any Committee, but does he agree that there should be more parliamentary accountability than exists at the moment?
David Davis: I do agree, and I shall offer a model of how I think the Committee should be set up. The hon. Gentleman may remember that I was one of the Ministers on the Bill to which he referred. I recall that I said at the time that the then Government expected the Committee, and its relationship with Parliament, to evolve. I am sure that he can look that up if he wants to.
Prior to the ISC’s existence and, indeed, for the past decade or so, a great deal of oversight had been provided to the secret arm of Government by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee sitting as a Committee of one. From memory, that arrangement applied to various aspects of the operations undertaken by MI6, MI5 and GCHQ. If he casts his mind back, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will recall the publication of the report on the £150 million overrun on the cost of the buildings for MI5 and MI6. My predecessor in those days was Robert Sheldon, now Lord Sheldon. He tried to get that report published, but the agencies told him that the information was so secret that it could not be put in the public domain. Tom King, now Lord King, was the ISC Chairman at the time, and he also said that he would like to see the information in the public domain, but he, too, was told that it was too secret. In the end, all three of us ganged up on the Government—this Government—who were persuaded that information such as that could be put in the public domain.
A redaction process then started, as I wanted to make the final report as accountable as possible. I received two documents—one each from MI5 and MI6—containing all their proposed deletions. The chapters that they wanted to redact looked almost identical, but the proposed redactions were different. I therefore wrote to the agencies. I asked MI5, “If MI6 allows us in, why can’t MI5?” I also asked MI6, “If MI5 allows us in, why can’t MI6?” The agencies’ opposition to the report collapsed and it was published almost in its entirety. I do not think that any aspect of our security and intelligence operation was damaged—
Andrew Mackinlay: Did the western world collapse after that?
David Davis: No, the western world did not collapse—at least, not from that cause anyway. However, the hon. Member for Walsall, North is right: it is perfectly possible for a responsible Committee to carry out oversight in the way described.
I do not entirely agree with how the Americans handle all their oversight arrangements, especially in respect of budget oversight, but the objective that has been set out is eminently achievable. I should like a Committee to be established along the lines of the PAC, with serious investigative resources. I do not mean this as an insult to the ISC’s current Chairman, but it is possible that, as a matter of course, the proposed Committee should have an Opposition Chairman. That is what happens with the PAC, and if I am Home Secretary in two or three years I may be in a position to offer the right hon. Member for Torfaen another job.
The mechanism that I envisage can be achieved. As we enhance the size and effectiveness of our security services, we owe it to the people of Britain to enhance the oversight that goes with that.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington and Chelsea) (Con): I was Secretary of State for Defence when the ISC was formed, and it is easy to forget how revolutionary an innovation it was considered to be and how nervous the agencies were about any degree of scrutiny. However, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend: the excellent work done by the ISC, and the nature of the security problems that it and the Government face at present, more than justifies the sort of reforms that he is recommending.
David Davis: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend, with whom I have worked on these matters before. I hope that we have a well-informed view of the needs of the security services, but we also have respect for the effectiveness of Parliament in this area.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
David Davis: I give way to another member of the ISC.
Richard Ottaway: I apologise to the House and to the Home Secretary for intervening, given that I was not present for the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am interested in what my right hon. Friend is saying. I have served on a fairly high profile Select Committee and on the ISC, and I have an open mind about the proposal that he is making, but will he elaborate on how he sees a Select Committee working within the confines of the Official Secrets Act? By definition, a parliamentary Committee is open, whereas the Official Secrets Act is, of course, limiting.
David Davis: There is no doubt that the proposed Committee would be unique in that respect, but the American Senate has a very effective oversight committee. For instance, Pat Roberts’ committee helped to produce the 9/11 report, and there are many other examples. What we propose is not impossible and there are various options, such as requiring all Committee members to be privy Councillors. We need to begin the debate on the matter, to ensure that we have the right level of scrutiny to match the security requirements.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab): The right hon. Gentleman is making some sensible and helpful proposals. I have pursued precisely these matters for a long time, and over the years I have become aware that people say things in opposition that melt away when they get into government. If he ever gets into government, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will stick firmly by the idea that the security services should account to Parliament and not to the Prime Minister?
David Davis: There are two aspects for the hon. Gentleman to consider. First, I was a member of the Committee that put MI6—the SIS—on to an avower basis for the first time, so my enthusiasm was evident even as a junior Minister. Secondly, I am told that when people go into government they have 12 months of virtue, so when and if I am Home Secretary in three years’ time, I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reminds me of that point. That is why I am making it now.
Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) (Lab/Co-op): Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. From time to time, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has received classified information, which it has never leaked; nor would it. Nevertheless the Committee has regularly been told by Ministers, in this and the previous Government, that certain information will not be given to us because it is being given to the ISC. The members of that Committee are good people, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), whom I served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, but the ISC is not a Committee of the House and it is not accountable to the House, so I am very interested in the proposal made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), but it should go further.
David Davis: I am tempted to say, “Get thee behind me, Satan”, but I shall leave that point right there. However, I encourage Members, especially the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to remind me in two and half years’ time of what I said this evening.
Mr. Ellwood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ISC has limitations? The report it produced for the House on the Bali bombings in 2002 suggested that MI5 had got the threat level wrong and that it should have been raised from significant to high. The report was put to the House, but the House decided not to act on it. The consequences of not accepting its recommendation about travel advice from the Foreign Office were huge and affected all the people consulting the website when making plans to travel to Bali. The whole report, written by Ann Taylor, was dismissed by the Chamber, which shows how limited the powers of the ISC are.
David
Davis: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I think that he
is blaming the wrong person. We cannot blame the Committee for the
extent to which the House or the Government take action on the basis of
its recommendations. That is purely the responsibility of the House and
the Government. The Committee does
the best job it can within the limits of its remit and my hon. Friend
highlights a good example of one of the things that it
illustrated.
The burden of the ISC’s work this year has been the report into the London terrorist attacks of 7 July, about which I do not intend to go into great detail as I suspect that the story will change over the coming year. When the Committee published its report, I paid tribute to it as “extremely insightful”, but although the Committee is impartial, astute and of the highest integrity, as I have said before, there are limitations on what it can achieve. I shall read a quotation to the House:
“No one wants to play the blame game. No one wants an investigation to find one person who was at fault and make them pay. But we need to fully understand what happened on July 7. And there is a very simple reason - it is the best way to stop it from ever happening again. The public need to know if there was anything that could have been done immediately before the attacks to prevent them. They need to know whether there were things the police or security services might have done which could have saved all those lives.”
Those are the words not of some wild revolutionary, but of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). So if the Home Secretary will not listen to me, perhaps he will listen to his right hon. Friend who, as the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and a former Home Office Minister, has a good deal more experience in these matters than almost anybody else—even members of the Government.
It is worth pointing out that almost every serious breach of security under previous Governments has resulted in an independent inquiry, generally led by a member of the judiciary, such as the Radcliffe inquiry in 1962, the Denning inquiry and the Franks inquiry. The least that the Government can do, to ensure that no stone is left unturned in learning the lessons from last July, is to order a full, independent inquiry. So far, the Home Secretary has shown himself willing to reconsider some of the decisions taken by his predecessors. I hope that this will be another issue on which he is prepared to be independently minded and to do what is best in the interests of the public.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |