Memorandum submitted by Assistant Commisioner John
Yates QPM, Specialist Operations
Thank you for inviting me to appear before the Home Affairs Committee
on the 7 September to give evidence on our arrangements for the
protection of Royalty and other public figures.
When invited to give evidence on matters entrusted to your Committee,
my strong preference on every occasion would be to deliver the
maximum degree of transparency. I consider such opportunities
for openness and accountability a crucial factor in building trust
and confidence within our communities.
Regrettably, there are occasions when a legitimate public interest
in how we discharge our responsibilities is outweighed by the
consequential operational risk that detailed public disclosure
might bring about. I therefore wanted to write to the Committee
in advance of the session and explain why I will only be able
to set out in the very broadest of terms protection arrangements
for members of the Royal Household and other public figures.
It is our longstanding policy, shared by Government, not to provide
detailed comment on protective security arrangements. There is
strong evidence that terrorists make use of a wide range of sources
during attack planning, including press reporting. Whilst the
public disclosure of some data may in itself seem insignificant,
when connected with other open source material it could allow
quite effective profiling of potential targets and comparison
of their respective vulnerabilities, whether it is by a terrorist,
criminal or fixated person.
Even a financial breakdown of investment in protective security
arrangements for individuals increases the risk as it could allow
those with hostile intent to discern the relative strength of
those measures and, as a consequence enable them to make more
precise judgements about the capability to be overcome. Having
said that, what I can provide is the aggregated figure from the
Home Office Dedicated Security Post (DSP) Grant, which funds specialist
police roles relating exclusively to the protection of the Royal
family and other public figures and their residences.
It is also important to note that there are robust governance
structures in place that ensure protection arrangements are both
risk based and proportionate. This is in the form of a Home Office
led committee and supporting working groups, with representation
from the Royal Household and the Police Service. This Committee
has executive responsibility for determining the levels of protection
afforded to individuals, for ensuring the effectiveness of those
arrangements and for keeping them under continuous review.
I understand that the Home Affairs Committee
might also inquire about the impact any forthcoming spending cuts
might have on our ability to mitigate and manage the terrorist
threat. Unfortunately comments I made on this in June during a
private session with ACPO were leaked publicly. I hope you understand
that it would be inappropriate for me to be
involved in a public debate on such sensitive issues at time when
they are under discussion.
That notwithstanding, I can assure
you that we are working very closely with
the Home Office and others throughout this process. We fully understand
the pressure on public expenditure and I accept that we will have
to bear an appropriate share of the burden. As such, we
are scrutinising and risk assessing all areas of our activity.
Protective security is not exempt from this process. I am copying
this letter to the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the Home
Secretary.
September 2010
| 
