Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
20-39)
LORD WEST
OF SPITHEAD
13 OCTOBER 2009
Q20 Chairman: Also when you think
this process will be concluded?
Lord West of Spithead: Yes.
Q21 Patrick Mercer: The two gentlemen
who had control orders dropped against them, could you just remind
me what their status is now?
Lord West of Spithead: As I understand
it, and I would have to check up on this, they are no longer under
control orders.
Q22 Patrick Mercer: So they are free
to wander the streets?
Lord West of Spithead: They will
be dealt with—and when I say "dealt with" that
is not a very good expression—in terms of the security of
this nation, there will be adequate things put in place to ensure
that our people are safe.
Q23 Chairman: That is not an answer
to Mr Mercer. If they are not the subject of a control order,
if you drop the control order, where are they; what controls are
there on them? Could they be in this room watching your evidence
session?
Lord West of Spithead: Basically
the Security Service and SO15 will be putting in measures they
think are appropriate to ensure they are not a risk, rather like
the 2,000 people that are being monitored.
Q24 Chairman: So they are under surveillance?
Lord West of Spithead: Yes.
Q25 Patrick Mercer: They are under
an expensive form of surveillance?
Lord West of Spithead: Whether
it is more expensive or less I do not know. There will have been
a judgment made on that. As I say, the really high risk people,
the people who are really a great risk to us, the study that was
done showed quite clearly that in terms of resources the resources
involved would be a lot greater.
Q26 Ms Buck: Lord West, can you confirm
that there are around 1,500 interception warrants issued every
year? Could you perhaps give us an indication of how that figure
might have changed over, say, the last five years?
Lord West of Spithead: I am afraid
I do not have that. Could I write about that—I do not have
that at my fingertips, I am afraid.
Q27 Ms Buck: Yes. Given that interception
evidence is not admissible in court—and I think there are
going to be some other questions specifically about that—what
is the purpose of it? In what way does that actually enhance our
security and enable us to bring people to a successful prosecution?
Lord West of Spithead: It is the
difference really between intelligence and evidence. When you
get intelligence and gather that, if that intelligence shows that
someone is intending to cause harm or do something that is criminal,
you hope you will then be able to move forward and get evidence
to build around that to build a case. The intercept is often the
very first way we get an indication that somebody—and I
am talking now in counter-terrorist terms, but it is very, very
important of course in serious organised crime as well—might
be linked to some group that intends causing us damage, say for
example to an al-Qaeda link or something. That can very, very
often be the first bit of information we get. I think intercepts
are involved in 95% of serious crime investigations.
Q28 Ms Buck: On specifically an issue
of counter-terrorism, the proportion of intercept warrants that
might result then in a prosecution would be what? I presume somebody
is actually analysing the relationship.
Lord West of Spithead: I am afraid
I do not know and would have to get back to you on that.
Q29 Ms Buck: I would be very grateful
to you. Finally, the fact that most other countries are permitting
intercept evidence, how do they actually get round what we understand
to be the principal barrier, which is that disclosure about intercept
would reveal too much about the way our intelligence services
operate?
Lord West of Spithead: I think,
first, one has got to be very careful in saying that most countries
do this; because there are differences in the sort of intercept
and who does it. For example, if one looks at the US, FBI-type
intercepts—which very often are what we think of in the
old-fashioned phone tapping—are allowed to be used; but
the clever stuff—because nowadays there are so many methods
of communication which is done by NSA—is not actually used
in the same sort of way. It is a bit apples and oranges—comparing
it. I think the other aspect is that many, many countries actually
have nowhere near the sorts of capabilities that the US and ourselves
have. We very often are helping out our European allies by telling
them, "Look out, you're about to be bombed" sort of
thing. There is quite a difference there; so it is not quite as
clear-cut as one might think.
Q30 Mr Streeter: Just staying with
the use of intercept evidence in court, Lord West—and I
agree strongly with you, that your preference is that people should
be brought to trial and convicted if they are guilty and so on,
rather than control orders or other forms of action—the
recent airline bomb plot case, where intercept evidence was effectively
introduced through the backdoor via California and helped to secure
a conviction in that case, does that help you as Security Minister
to push the rest of your colleagues in Government for a change
in the law over here? It did seem to make a slight mockery of
it that it was an important part of the case but it could not
come directly from the UK but same in via Yahoo! in California.
Lord West of Spithead: I am glad
you raised that one because I think there have been quite a lot
of misconceptions about it. That was not intercept. During the
first trial the defendants declared their email address and said,
"These are our email addresses". Initially we did not
pursue the fact that those were their email addresses with great
vigour because actually we believed that the original evidence
was so overwhelming, including their martyrdom videos and everything
else, that we could not believe they would not be found guilty;
and I am very glad to say now three of them have been found guilty.
Then when we found they were not we thought we had better get
every single bit of stuff together. We did not intercept this;
we went to the US police and the US State Department, and the
US service provider was asked to provide us with all the emails
within the box of that particular address, so this was not intercept.
That was then provided and that is where they were. So this was
not actually a case of intercept being used as evidence; it was
done in that way. As regards intercept as evidence, I believe
Chilcot was absolutely right, it needs to meet the nine conditions
he has got; because this intercept stuff really is the crown jewels.
I talk about the 95%—it is so crucial in our fight against
terrorism; and we know how quick and how cute these people who
wish to kill us are about this. Osama bin Laden back in the 1980s,
when I was CDI, used a mobile. There is no way in a million years
you would use a mobile now because we have all seen on the television,
because it has all come out in court, what this means. Every time
every little bit comes up they learn it. Bang, they do not mess
about and it makes it harder for us to do things. We need to be
really careful I think in that area.
Q31 Tom Brake: Lord West, you mentioned
our European partners, and I was just wondering to what extent
we do work effectively with other European countries and also
the Middle Eastern countries, for instance; and the extent to
which their willingness to work with us is driven potentially
by other factors, such as political factors or economic factors?
Lord West of Spithead: We have
a large number of bilaterals; all the agencies have this, and
within the Home Office the OSCT; we have a lot of bilaterals.
We talk to Europe also in the context of the EEU. In fact, I was
over there last week specifically primarily to talk about cyber
terrorism and cyber security; because I am very concerned about
cyber security and, as you are aware, we have just produced our
first ever British cyber security strategy; and that was the area
I was talking about. Within the context of the EEU there has been
movement. There are some good things done. There is a bit of work
done on the CBRN area; but we need to do more and that is part
of the reason I was over there; we need to do more there. Because
of the sensitivity of some things—almost inevitably it has
always historically been done this way and I cannot see it completely
changing—you do tend to work on a bilateral basis. For example,
when you have got very, very sensitive information, which probably
you would not normally share but when you know it is to do with
an attack in a friendly nation, you would go and tell them that
and talk to them specifically one-on-one about that to give them
a heads-up because it involves the lives of people of that nation.
There are a number of factors, as you say, that are involved in
how you have your dealings. There are some people you deal with
much more closely. For example, GCHQ and NSA are joined at the
hip because of the agreement signed in 1948 which has run ever
since; and then you go to the other extreme where there are people
whom you deal with a bit arm's length really; but you need to
deal with them because it will affect the safety of people in
this country.
Q32 Mr Winnick: One or two questions
on other threats, Lord West. As regards the security of our country,
are you now satisfied with the 28 days pre-charge detention?
Lord West of Spithead: I am content
with where we stand on that. The difficulty always is the difference
between intelligence and evidence. If you look at some of the
trials that have gone through, we have needed quite a long time
to turn intelligence into evidence. The Overt trial, there was
no actual evidence on the day we arrested these people; it was
all intelligence. The police have this huge job then to go through
and get all this together. I am content where we stand at the
moment.
Q33 Mr Winnick: You were content
when you were interviewed. If you remember, you said, "28
days is sufficient". Then you went to Downing Street—and
I am sure it was a pure coincidence—and, a few minutes or
half an hour after your original statement that you were content,
you wanted an extension to 42 days. You are satisfied now with
the 28 days?
Lord West of Spithead: I think
I would probably put that differently. It is not really worth
going into that now. I would put it in a different context from
that. We were looking at a longer period and I think we needed
to weigh up all the pros and cons of that, and that is what we
were doing. I am content with the 28 days.
Q34 Mr Winnick: A good politician's
answer, Lord West!
Lord West of Spithead: I am learning,
you see!
Q35 Mr Winnick: The threat from mass
murderers who claim they are doing this in the name of their religion,
however warped, is of course our main concern and must be: but
are there other threats to our security—the latest news
for Northern Ireland is dissident Republicans, animal rights extremists
and so on and so forth? Do you feel the Security Services have
sufficient resources to deal with these threats as well as the
main one which I have mentioned?
Lord West of Spithead: The resources
to our agencies have been increased dramatically. By 2010/11 we
will be spending £3.5 billion a year on counter-terrorism,
which is a significant increase.
Q36 Chairman: How much was it ten
years ago?
Lord West of Spithead: About a
billion. So that is a huge increase. Rather like as an Admiral
I always want more ships, then the Security Service I am sure
always want more money to do things. One has to look at these
things in balance. I am satisfied that these other threats—and
you are absolutely right—they are there and they are very
real; whether it is the splinter groups of Republican terrorism
in Northern Ireland, which unfortunately we have seen a growth
of, I hope some of our successes and some of the trials will actually
have an impact on that; and I hope as the Agreement moves forward
that will have an impact as well; but that is taking quite a lot
of effort and the Security Service have put more effort into that
arena again, because of that problem. As regards other extremists,
you will have seen in the newspapers we do regularly get rightwing
extremists, people with certain beliefs or complete nutcases,
and a whole spectrum—the animal rights people, we had some
huge successes against them because they were violent terrorists
who were quite happy to kill, maim and things like that—and
I am content that the balance is there. You are quite right raising
it. It is a tricky issue, because there is no doubt the biggest
threat to us all are the al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists whose sole
aim is mass killings, to kill as many people as possible; it is
quite horrifying actually. That means we must not forget these
others, and we do not. We have had some considerable successes
there.
Q37 Mrs Cryer: Lord West, after 2½
years in office and following everything that has been discussed
this morning, is there anything further you feel could be done
to improve the system?
Lord West of Spithead: I think
the system is actually quite good. I think one of your sub-committees
actually said that the structure and the underlying system, the
underlying strategy, you were very impressed with it. I was pleased
about that because actually I do think in the last 2¼ years
it has really firmed up and I am very proud of what has been achieved.
One would be very bigheaded and pigheaded to say there are not
things to be done to improve it, I think there are; and I think
we continually need to look at it and refine it and as things
happen; and, God forefend, we have been extremely lucky but, my
goodness me, they only have to be lucky once. I have huge admiration
for our agencies, for the police, our unit SO15, because all of
the time they are continually dismantling plots, doing things
to keep us safe. Yes, something that can be refined. I go back
to this thing, I do like exercises; some people get fed-up with
them but it does expose things and it lets you get better and
refine things and make changes.
Q38 Mrs Cryer: But there is nothing
specific that you want to mention this morning?
Lord West of Spithead: No, there
is nothing really where I think there is a real rotting problem
that needs to be got at. There are little fine-tuning things that
I am involved in that I have told the Cabinet Secretary about
and that sort of thing but nothing of major import. Are there
some areas within counter-terrorism that worry me? I mentioned
the whole domain of cyber security and that is a real, real worry
that area. The other one is CBRN again where, when I came in 2¼
years ago, I did not feel there had been enough impetus and that
is a real concern.
Q39 Mr Streeter: Prompted by what
you said there, Lord West, about being vigilant and seeing new
threats and so on, were you surprised by the ease at which 40
people could get up onto the roof of the House of Commons? If
they had been terrorists with hand grenades, not because we
are here but because it is our Parliament and they could have
blown it up, is that something that would come across your desk
now in terms of reviewing security?
Lord West of Spithead: I know
that the Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has got a sally straight
away going into that. I think the Sergeant at Arms is looking
at that.
| 
