Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-41)
LORD WEST
OF SPITHEAD
AND MR
STEPHEN SMITH
26 JANUARY 2010
Q1 Chairman: Good morning. Could
I refer all those present to the Register of Members' Interests
where the interests of members are noted. Could I welcome to the
dais Lord West, the Counter-Terrorism Minister, and Stephen Smith
from the Office of Security. Can I begin by thanking you, Lord
West, for giving evidence at such short notice. As you know, the
Home Secretary announced the raising of the threat level last
Friday, and the Committee felt that it would be helpful if you
came to give evidence as to why this had happened or any other
information that could be helpful to Parliament. So thank you
very much for changing your diary at such very short notice to
be with us today. I was phoned by the Home Secretary at 8.15 on
Friday, and very courteously he told me he was going to announce
at 8.30 on Friday that the threat level was going to be increased
from "substantial" to "severe". Could you
tell the Committee, when were you informed that the threat level
was going to be increased?
Lord West of Spithead:
Could I maybe just say a few words before I answer that specifically.
First of all, I am delighted to be here before the Committee.
I know you are taking evidence from Paul Clark after me in terms
of some of the detail on the transport side of things. I am happy
to answer any questions about all aspects of security really.
I do believe this Committee has a very important role, and that
is why I was happy to change my programme. As you are probably
aware, I am quite tied into the Afghanistan issue and the Yemen
issue, all of which are going on this week as well.
Q2 Chairman: We are very grateful.
Lord West of Spithead: I have
to make quite clear that, clearly, I cannot talk about intelligence
as such. In terms of intelligence and how that relates to threat
levels, clearly I cannot talk about that. The Home Secretary is
doing a written ministerial statement today on this specific issue
really laying down what can be said about it. I think in terms
of your specific question to me, I was aware of it—I cannot
remember exactly the time—but shortly after a COBR meeting
that was held on Friday. I think it is best to go back maybe at
how one looks at intelligence. Every week there is a weekly security
meeting, often chaired by the Home Secretary; in fact last week
it was chaired by me. At those meetings we talk in great depth
(we have all departments represented; all the agencies represented)
about all aspects of counter-terrorism. It became clear at that
meeting that we were getting more and more evidence from across
the board, all sorts of factors, all sorts of things, which meant
we should have a COBR; so that JTAC—who actually make the
final assessment on whether there should be a change in threat
level—could be aware of every single bit of information
from all government departments and agencies. There was a COBR
meeting on the Friday afternoon. After that meeting I got a call
saying JTAC had decided that they wanted to raise the threat level.
Q3 Chairman: To get the process right—and
you have been extremely helpful and we are very grateful for that—COBR
meets first?
Lord West of Spithead: No, not
necessarily. On this occasion, as I say, that is how it rolled
into it because I had the weekly security meeting; there were
so many strands of staff and other bits of information, all sorts
of things, that I felt it was worth having a COBR so this could
be looked at in great detail by everyone involved, and that would
give JTAC a chance and opportunity to make an assessment.
Q4 Chairman: Just to get the process
right—because I think the public are very interested, and
obviously Parliament is interested in the process—you have
your Thursday morning meetings of course, which we are aware of.
This Committee will be publishing next week our report on counter-terrorism
structures, and members of this Committee have been into the COBR
room. So you have your weekly meetings on a Thursday morning and
on this occasion COBR met on Friday morning?
Lord West of Spithead: Yes, because
I felt that it was worth getting all the details of all sorts
of things pulled together; but all the time JTAC are always looking
at and making assessments as to whether they should change the
threat level.
Q5 Chairman: JTAC then met after
the COBR meeting?
Lord West of Spithead: As I understand
it, JTAC then made the decision post that meeting and I do not
know exactly how they made that. I try to keep out of that as
a minister because I do not want this to be a political issue
at all, so I do not know exactly how that was done at that stage.
Q6 Chairman: The recommendation to
perform a change in the threat level is one for JTAC and not for
politicians, is that right?
Lord West of Spithead: That is
absolutely correct.
Q7 Chairman: What you are saying
is very helpful. JTAC will make the recommendation and this is
a body that is exclusively made up of officials?
Lord West of Spithead: Officials,
correct.
Q8 Chairman: The security services?
Lord West of Spithead: Yes.
Q9 Chairman: Officials from the Home
Office?
Lord West of Spithead: They will
take advice from people like OSCT, but it is actually up to JTAC
themselves—the head of JTAC and/or the deputies—to
say, "Right, we believe we should raise the threat level".
Q10 Chairman: They would have met
on Friday after COBR. What do they then do? Do they then ring
the Home Secretary, or ring you and say, "We have considered
this very carefully and we believe that the threat level should
be raised to the next level up, or the next level down"?
Lord West of Spithead: Yes.
Q11 Chairman: They make that decision?
Lord West of Spithead: Yes, because
the Home Secretary decides, "Right, how am I going to announce
this so that all the people who need to know—Parliament
and other people—know exactly how this is going to be done?"
Yes, they contact the Home Secretary; and the Prime Minister is
also told of this as well.
Q12 Chairman: Are politicians able
to say, "Hang on a minute, we've listened to what you've
had to say but we're not going to make this announcement"?
Are they able to say that, or are they able to second-guess the
decision?
Lord West of Spithead: I think
in theory the Home Secretary could say, "I'd actually like
to delay it for four hours", or whatever; but I have never
ever known that to happen. As soon as it is there then it is promulgated;
because it is not just that threat level. Just going back if I
can make it clear, on this occasion there was a COBR—that
is not the necessity. It is always being assessed all the time.
We have our weekly security meetings, as I say, every week. There
are other meetings, discussions and dialogues on these issues;
so all the time they are reviewing and looking at these things.
I am explaining how on this occasion it just happened in that
sequence.
Q13 Chairman: Once the announcement
was made at 8.30 by the Home Secretary (this is obviously the
first time a minister has come before a committee to explain the
process in terms of that decision) clearly the public are not
going to be told intelligence, the basis upon which the change
is being made; the public is merely told that the threat level
had been changed to a higher level. Is that right?
Lord West of Spithead: That is
correct. Below that is a whole tapestry of threats and threat
levels to specific establishments, to sectors, to all sorts of
areas, and these are not promulgated. For example, there might
be (and I am giving a "for instance") a specific change
in the threat level (and these threat levels are not always in
the same listing as this; they are different—blacks and
golds) to Wellington Barracks in London, to Buckingham Palace,
to the government security zone, to movement on certain parts
of the underground or whatever; and this is a tapestry of threat
levels and all of these are adjusted by JTAC as necessary to fit
in with this. These are ones which, clearly for very good operational
reasons, are not promulgated.
Q14 Chairman: Once the announcement
is made obviously there is an expectation that the public will
have to do something as a result of the change in threat level.
Surely politicians just do not announce an increase and then expect
nothing to happen. What were your expectations as to what you
wished the public to do as a result of the threat level being
increased?
Lord West of Spithead: I think
it is very important that we let the public know if we believe
there is a higher threat of something happening.
Q15 Chairman: What was the expectation?
Lord West of Spithead: We came
to that agreement a couple of years ago when this was first opened
up as something that should be told. There was a huge debate,
as you know, at the time. Some people say, "Well, actually
it's probably better not to tell people". I am actually not
a believer in that. I think it is best to let people know if that
sort of thing is changing.
Q16 Chairman: Absolutely.
Lord West of Spithead: What we
expect is greater vigilance. I have always got this balance: one
does not want to frighten the horses. If you sit where I am sitting
and see every day all the stuff coming across the desk, one could
become pretty gloomy; but actually I am not. I am quite an optimist;
I am a glass half full person; because over the last two and a
half years we have done so much, I believe, to help make the country
safer—not safe, but safer.
Q17 Chairman: In making that announcement
you expected the pubic, or the Home Secretary expected the public
to be more vigilant as a result of the increase in the threat
level?
Lord West of Spithead: Absolutely.
In the summer of 2007, just after I had come into post, I remember
talking in fact on a cliff top in Dorset where one of my sons
was announcing his engagement, being tracked down by the media;
and I said there that what was very important was that this was
something that involved the whole nation; and that people needed
to be vigilant and needed to report, and at that stage we were
at that level.
Q18 Chairman: Is that what the Home
Secretary said last week? When he announced the increase in the
threat level he actually said, "As a result of the increase
in the threat level, we expect you, the public, to be more vigilant"?
Lord West of Spithead: I am afraid
I do not know exactly what he said.
Q19 Chairman: That is what your expectation
was?
Lord West of Spithead: My expectation
is that the public would be more vigilant. Actually I think the
public are quite intelligent; I know some people do not assess
that, but I do; and if they are told there is a greater threat
that they would be more vigilant. We do disseminate actually very
clear phone lines for the counter-terrorism hotline; very clear
phone lines for how to get hold of the Security Service, so the
public can do this. Again, a year ago I spoke to a couple of newspapers
and said, "Look, this isn't grassing up your friends; actually
this is as a good citizen. The people we are trying to catch are
trying to kill large numbers of innocent people. If there is anything,
please make sure you phone and let people know". It has been
a constant theme.
Chairman: We will come on to other aspects.
I am just going to ask colleagues to come in and question you
on the threat level first.
Q20 Mr Winnick: There must be few
people generally who are not aware of the acute terrorist threat,
certainly after the atrocities of 7 July 2005. The average person,
it is difficult to see what he or she could do further as a result
of the increase in the level of danger. Would you agree, Minister?
Lord West of Spithead: I think
for the average individual living in his vicarage deep in England
probably there is very little that he can do about that; but I
still do not think that means we should not tell them if JTAC
assess there is a greater threat.
Q21 Mr Winnick: Does that mean that,
as far as is possible, people should certainly be even more on
their guard when they are going on the trains, underground, buses
and the rest. Is that what you are saying?
Lord West of Spithead: I think
there is a tendency—and it is a very good tendency; it is
very British and I love it—actually that if there has not
been a bomb yesterday that you get on with your life. The whole
point of defeating terrorism is that we get on with our lives;
that we live it; that we work; that we travel; that we have fun
and enjoy it. However, there is a threat there and people need
occasionally just to think of that. Because we know the threat
(and JTAC have assessed this now) is higher therefore it makes
a great deal of sense for people just to be a little bit more
vigilant.
Q22 Mr Winnick: The last thing presumably,
Minister, that we do not want—the government and the security
authorities—is that people should be is in such a state
of anxiety that they do not go about their ordinary business because
of the increased level of the threat to this country?
Lord West of Spithead: Absolutely
right, because otherwise you are doing the terrorist's business.
What I want is for people to live their lives; to go to work;
to travel; to have fun; and actually not to have this hanging
over them but to be aware there is a threat and if the threat
gets higher, quite right that JTAC should raise it and say there
is a higher threat but they need to get on with their lives but
just be a little bit more vigilant. It should not be an oppressive
thing. We have a large number of extremely good people I have
working for me and across the agencies doing amazing work to help
keep us safe. As I say, in the last two and a half years, I think
we have become safer, although we are still not safe; we are still
under threat.
Q23 Patrick Mercer: We have discussed
this before. You and I both lived through the Northern Ireland
campaign and we saw a terrorist campaign conducted on a very much
higher level of visibility there than the current campaign that
we face, but not necessarily a higher level of danger. All I would
say is that one of the ways that we managed to deter the terrorists
was by stimulating the public level of knowledge to the point
where life was able to be conducted relatively normally, despite
daily attacks on a largely civilian population. I challenge you
on the basis that you say phone lines are well known: they are
not. Phone lines are not well disseminated; they are not well
understood. We do not know what to do when the threat level goes
up. You can see me on the media at the weekend about this. My
analogy is the fact if the government were to say, "There
is a threat of Aids"; well, that is fascinating and extremely
frightening, but what do we do about it? In Ulster we knew what
to do about it because the telephone number was everywhere, there
was public information and public training without necessarily
any compromise of intelligence?
Lord West of Spithead: What I
would say is, the general sense of vigilance—I credit the
public with quite a lot of common sense—is that if you see
something very strange and extraordinary happening, if there is
something that looks as though it could be a threat or a danger
than you actually make sure you tell someone. You can find these
numbers easily. I suppose we could maybe promulgate them better,
and I will see if that is able to be done. As I say, I do not
want to create a frenzy of things. We want people just to behave
in their normal way but just to be that little bit more vigilant.
I think it is right that we should tell them that JTAC—and
this is why it is very important to split from politics—assess
there is a higher threat, and then I think it is right we should
let the public know. There has been this debate before. Let us
not give them these threat levels. You remember in Northern Ireland
the threat levels were not actually promulgated to the public.
I think the balance is probably right.
Q24 Mr Streeter: Is there anywhere
a chart which is akin to, say, a storm force chart so that at
level six we know the waves are whipping—and with your background
you would be very familiar with that, much more than I am. Is
there even internally a chart to say when it is "substantial"
this is happening, or this should be done by the public and you
go up to "severe"; because that would be helpful, would
it not? I know that would perhaps be a little simplistic but I
think it would help.
Lord West of Spithead: I think
it would. I do not think there are lots and lots of things one
wants the public to do. There are lots of things in this tapestry
of other threat warnings that are there and that agencies and
organisations do. There are lots of things there that happen,
and they are all in that huge complex tapestry. There are not
lots of things I want the public to do. I certainly do not want
the public to be going around thinking, "Oh my God, oh my
God, I'm going to be killed", because it is far from that;
but, as JTAC have assessed, there is a higher threat. I think
JTAC are very good at making that assessment and that is what
they have done. I think it is right that we should let the public
know that. As I say, generally, they should be more vigilant and
sensible, and understand there is a higher threat. It makes people
just keep a better eye out. The British—as I say, it is
a trait I love—if there is not a bomb yesterday they forget
about that and get on with their lives. I am jolly glad about
it; it is one of the strengths of our nation.
Q25 Chairman: Intelligence aside,
Minister, I think what the Committee is saying is that you could
obviously keep the intelligence confidential but, if you do not
give the public information as to what to do, there is the possibility
of speculation. The weekend papers were full of speculation that
an Indian airline was going to be hijacked and flown into a British
city. Other newspapers were speculating on other aspects. Is it
not important that as much information ought to be given? I know
you want to rely on the great character and traits of the British
people, which of course is there, but there is a lot of speculation
as to why this was being done. Some have suggested that it was
because the conferences were taking place this week. Some were
speculating that it was because Mr Blair was giving evidence to
the Iraq Inquiry; or that Hillary Clinton was flying in. Is there
not a case when the announcement is made for more information
to be given, other than intelligence and confidential information,
so that the public can know how to react?
Lord West of Spithead: No, I do
not think there is. I think the way we want the public to react,
as I say, is to be vigilant about what is going on. There will
always be all sorts of speculation about things. I think it would
be extremely dangerous to even give away one strand. What I want
to do, if there is any opportunity at all and someone is trying
to do something, is to be able to get the bastards and put them
in prison where they belong. I would not want anything that actually
had any impact on that whatsoever. That is if they are in this
country, or achieve the same result abroad. I think there is a
real danger, if one starts to try and explain in any way, you
start to creep into intelligence, and I think that is extremely
dangerous and I do not think we should do that.
Q26 Chairman: Do you think that what
you did on Friday means it is more likely, in your words, "to
get the bastards"?
Lord West of Spithead: I think
what it means is with the focus and all of those other things
in place it is more difficult for them to get us.
Q27 Martin Salter: On the subject
of getting the bastards, Lord West—
Lord West of Spithead: Yes, I
must stop using that expression. I am a salty seadog, you know,
and I get in trouble about this, but you know what I mean. I do
not particularly like the people that I am after.
Chairman: I think Mr Salter is very comfortable
with that language!
Q28 Martin Salter: No, I am with
you. It is slightly mild! Just playing devil's advocate for a
moment, is there actually any point in announcing to terrorists,
or groups that would seek to do us harm, what we are seeking to
do to counter them? I am looking at the Home Secretary's statement
on 5 January which talks about all these measures that are going
to be put into the airport. On the one hand that is obviously
designed to be effective in its own right and reassure the public
but, on the other hand, it is basically saying to terrorist networks
that we need to be more inventive and find ways around these things
that the government have very kindly told us we are going to be
doing?
Lord West of Spithead: There is
obviously a need to reassure the public. That is part of the equation—that
actually we are taking the right sort of action. I think it is
appropriate we should do that. What we do not do is say everything
we are doing. I think what is equally clear is that the people
who are trying to kill large numbers of innocent people explore
every possibility and are constantly pushing and tweaking at the
edges. For example, the issue of not having any metal in their
bomb so they can get through metal detectors is not something
that came as a huge surprise to us; we have already been doing
work on this. Two years ago I was pushing in terms of science
and technology and getting linked in with industry so that we
could actually start looking at scanners; we could look at whole
areas of airports; about behavioural patterns; and we have done
a lot of work on that as well; but this takes time for this all
to get into place. Last summer we produced our science and technologic
strategy; in the first brochure of that we particularly pointed
to industry and said the area of scanning was one of the key areas
we wanted a lot of work on, and there was an opportunity for industry
there; and there has been a lot of work there; because we know
they are always prodding and trying these things. We are all the
time sitting there and thinking, "Now, how are they going
to change their methodology?" Well before Mumbai, I was having
work done in the Home Office saying, "Right, what if actually
they do their attacks rather than using VBIEDs and IEDs, they
do this using weapons and grenades; how are we going to counter
this?" and that work is ongoing. Constantly we are looking
at what other ways can they do this, and constantly they are trying.
They are looking, trying to break through and trying to find a
way in through the defensive structures we have put in place.
So far I think we have been extremely good in putting those in
place, but one cannot be complacent. I think some IRA man said
some time ago, "I only need to be lucky once". What
I am trying to do all the time is to not let them ever be lucky
that once, and that is really difficult.
Q29 Martin Salter: It was graffiti
on the walls of Derry after the Brighton bombing. "We were
lucky this time. We only have to be lucky once". On that
theme, the Home Secretary on the 5 January said even if full body
scanners were in place, there was still a 50% chance of Mr Abdulmutallab
actually getting through with the non-metallic bomb that he had.
Are you in a position to tell us if the technology is likely to
advance to a stage where any explosive device could be picked
up?
Lord West of Spithead: I am sure
Paul will talk in more detail about this, but the scanner is just
part of a whole complex series of things. Part of it starts with
the watch lists; the possibility in the future of a no-fly list;
the use of e-Borders; and then there are things like the behavioural
intelligence—how people are reacting and doing things like
that; and then there is the issue of scanners; the issue of explosive
detection equipments, which are getting better and better. In
answer to the specific one on scanners, I am sure scanners will
get better but at the moment I think we are about 50-60% sure,
but you have all these other factors involved as well. I would
have to say I personally am a great believer in dogs, because
I think dogs are good at this. They need to be trained and they
have to be there and you have to rotate them round but, my goodness
me, they are very good at discovering explosives and things. If
you put that whole package together that is how you get your defence;
how you sequence it; where you are actually checking. If you can
scan the whole airport concourse—we have had a lot of work
done on this—to see how people behave, fed through computer
programmes, certain kinds of behaviour flag people up very quickly,
even when they arrive at the airport itself, all of these things
together will do this.
Q30 David Davies: Lord West, there
are 4,000 on the no-fly list in the US and another 14,000 who
are set out for special measures. How many of those live in the
United Kingdom?
Lord West of Spithead: I have
to say I do not know that figure off the top of my head.
Q31 Chairman: Mr Smith, could you
help the Minister?
Mr Smith: I do not know off the
top of my head.
Q32 Chairman: You do not know how
many people are on the no-fly list?
Mr Smith: I do not know how many
British people are on the American no-fly list because it changes
regularly.
Q33 David Davies: I understand that
a number of people who reside in the United Kingdom, although
not necessarily British, are on the American no-fly list. In the
OSCT do you have no knowledge of this?
Lord West of Spithead: I am sure
someone does. I have to say, I have not got it at my fingertips
but I am very happy to write to you with that information. I do
not know that myself.
Q34 David Davies: That would be very
helpful. The British Government are planning a list; do we know
how large it is likely to be?
Lord West of Spithead: We do not
know that. There is ongoing work, as you know, on this in terms
of looking at extending it. There is no doubt that the previous
watch list was primarily an immigration watch list. There were
terrorist aspects to it.
Q35 David Davies: My final question
was going to be whether any of the people on the American no-fly
list will also be on the British no-fly list? But if nobody knows
whether or not any of the people on the American no-fly list reside
in Britain habitually then I do not suppose either of you gentlemen
will be able to answer that question?
Lord West of Spithead: I do not
know the exact answer to that; but I am absolutely sure that there
will be a certain level of consistency between the two. We certainly
share data on an individual basis about specifics with America
very closely. We do not share the whole package of data with the
Americans.
Q36 Mr Winnick: Minister, one or
two questions about new equipment to try and prevent terrorism.
We have heard that this equipment only works in conjunction with
profiling to identify "high risk" passengers. Have you
estimated, providing airport staff with the training needed, how
much it will cost?
Lord West of Spithead: I am afraid
that would be a better question for Paul. I do not know the cost.
There is work going on on this behavioural aspect at Heathrow
at the moment, so I am sure he has probably got some flavour for
what that would be. Looking at intelligence-based assessments
I think is very important. If you add on top of that things from
the e.Borders information: that he has paid for it in cash; he
is going on a long-distance flight and all he is carrying is one
book; he has done certain things in the airport; he is behaving
in a certain way; when you add all that together that probably
makes you say, "Actually, we probably need a better body
search of this chap, not just scanning him". When you put
them all together that is what gives you the level of security
that you need.
Q37 Mr Winnick: I think to a large
extent, Minister, the controversy is: is there going to be a question
of profiling people along ethnic or racial lines? In other words,
let us be blunt about it, someone who looks like a Muslim, has
the orthodox beard, and may be as far removed from terrorism as
ourselves, is that person going to find himself in a position
where he will be profiled differently from other airline passengers?
Lord West of Spithead: The answer
to that is: no. I think a classic example—and I think the
Home Secretary mentioned it in the House—was Anne-Marie
Murphy who was an Irish woman, Caucasian, white, Irish woman who
was pregnant, who was carrying explosives for her boyfriend. The
profiling in the sense of maybe, let us say, a South Asian Muslim
would not actually have helped at all with stopping her. Therefore,
I do not think that form of profiling is at all what we are going
for. We are looking at behavioural, intelligence-based assessment.
Profiling I think can give the wrong impression at times.
Q38 Mr Winnick: What you have said,
Minister, really totally undermines, does it not, what some advocate,
and perhaps witnesses later on, about profiling; because obviously,
as you have indicated, if indeed profiling along the lines that
I have indicated did take place, all the more reason that the
terrorists would be those who are converts or white, the people
least to be suspected of wishing to carry out and inflict terror?
Lord West of Spithead: As I say,
it is intelligence-based assessment and also behavioural assessment.
That is the focus and it encompasses a whole mass of things that
all come into the package to be able to do that; but it is not
on ethnic grounds or on religious grounds; that is not the basis
that we are doing this.
Mr Winnick: That is ruled out completely.
Q39 Chairman: I do not suppose you
were being profiled when you were stopped outside the Palace of
Westminster?
Lord West of Spithead: I was in
Birdcage Walk. To be fair to them, as soon as they realised who
I was said, "No, we're not going any further". I said,
"No, no, you absolutely are because the next thing is I'll
be accused by the media of not being". So they did the whole
works; but the seniority of policeman did rise dramatically over
the course of the incident!
Q40 Patrick Mercer: We heard during
the e.Borders inquiry that in particular Greek airports which
only stand up during the summer season for tourist purposes did
not intend or could not afford to have the sort of sophisticated
devices that we have been describing imposed inside those airports.
At the same time we heard from the Prime Minister that this form
of sophisticated searching would be required in airports particularly
that are flying into this country. That is fine, that is a great
aspiration but how are we going to make this happen?
Lord West of Spithead: I think
probably it is best if Paul answers that, because I would be treading
on his toes in terms of the transport portfolio in that area.
Q41 Mrs Dean: In that case I am not
sure whether you will be able to answer my question. In our e-Boards
inquiry we were given the impression that UKBA was trying to impose
requirements without taking into consideration the impact on the
flow of traffic and the transport infrastructure. Do you know
what the impact on port traffic—passenger and cargo—of
imposing the e-Borders regime on ports by the end of the year
as announced by the Prime Minister, will be? Can you answer that,
or is that one for Paul?
Lord West of Spithead: Again,
all I would say on this one, I think it really is a question for
Paul because I am always getting told off for treading on other
people's toes—although being Security Minister my portfolio,
in a way, runs across lots of departments, so it is a bit tricky.
I have been in a lot of dialogue with the Passenger Shipping Association
and others, because the issue that was very difficult was coach
loads of people arriving on passenger ferries. I know a lot of
work has been done on that. It was not so much the flow of individuals
coming in; it was not the problem coming through airports and
things like that; it was just the scale of those; how that was
done; and on Eurotunnel as well. I know there has been a lot of
work done on that; I do not know exactly where it has got to.
I was involved early on in it but it is very much a transport
issue.
Chairman: Minister, thank you very much
for giving evidence to us on not only the security threat but
also other issues of security. I am sorry we did not have more
questions for you, but I am sure you will be back in the future.
Thank you. We are now going to see a 30-second demonstration of
a new scanner that has been produced by Smiths Industries, which
was named by the Home Secretary in a statement.
(There followed a short demonstration
of the scanning equipment)
| 
