| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is right about languages and expertise. When I was Chief of Defence Intelligence, we did not have numbers of people who could the Balkan languages and we were deeply involved in fighting there. We had lots of very good Russian speakers, and we even had Columbian speakers-people who could speak dialects-because we had been doing stuff in the drug war out there, but no speakers of Balkan languages. When we went into Afghanistan, I had hardly anyone who could speak Pashtun and all the dialects there. The noble Lord is right that we need to look at this carefully in terms of academe, universities and our language training. We need more Farsi speakers. It is always a real problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about remedial teaching of English. All I know about that is that when I was First Sea Lord, we had to institute it at Dartmouth because, believe it or not, we found that some people coming out of universities could not write a proper letter, so it may be that some English remedial work has to go on.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also touched on terrorist funding. We have done a huge amount with the Terrorist Finance Action Group in looking at this and have had a real effect. The AQ leadership in Fatah is really suffering on funding, partly because some has gone to the Taliban but also because of the huge pressure we have put on. We are keeping this going. I have told the team. We now have a smaller group that looks at this all the time. It is rather like when you are boxing: if a chap has a slight cut on his eye, you keep whacking it. That is what we have to do with these people. Similarly, we are now putting huge pressure on Taliban funding because that can have an impact on our men and women who are at risk on a daily basis in Afghanistan. We can do things such as find ID routes and spares and how items get there by squeezing the funding. It is very important, and we are focusing on it.
I touched a little on international co-operation. The US is obliviously the closest and the 5Is community. We talk with the EU a lot. I have been over there a number of times and have talked about cyber. I do not think the EU had realised what a threat it is, but now it does and has asked us to do certain work for it. But sometimes we have difficulties. For example, on the SWIFT issue to do with funding, it does not see things the same way as we do, often because it does not appreciate the risks. I think what is needed is for us to explain these things in more detail, and, of course, we have one-to-one links with others.
As an admiral, I was a little shocked to hear the Union Jack story with regard to Menwith Hill. It is called the Union Jack only when it is on the forrard part of a ship; otherwise, it is the Union flag. I had to get that one right.
30 Mar 2010 : Column GC557
We have never had a national security strategy before and it is good that we have one. Yes, there are flaws in it and things need to be corrected and the second one was a lot better but we look on it in terms of threats to our citizens. It covers the whole mass of threats to our citizens within this country and worldwide, ranging from state on state threats-what are the implications of failing states?-nation building, counterterrorism, and all the spin-offs from that in terms of the CONTEST strategy, cybersecurity, serious organised crime and how that folds into it, all the work that has been done on that, and the whole programme of work we are doing, right down through to the resilience of our national infrastructure and natural disasters, pandemics, and all of that. All of that is now caught in there. We have horizon scanning, looking worldwide and horizon scanning internally and domestically. We are addressing all these issues. Yes, we have a long way to go and we must not be complacent, but, goodness me, we are in a far better place than we were two and a half years ago, and we are looking at all those things in a complex way.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, for giving his background to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. When I was CDI, I wondered why he suddenly seemed to parachute in as Minister DP. I now understand exactly what happened and I thank the noble Lord for that. I also understand why he was so very interested in me as Chief of Defence Intelligence during the Kosovo operation. That was very useful and I thank the noble Lord very much for it.
I have probably said more than enough. I hope that I have answered most of the questions. If there is anything that I have missed, I shall be very happy to respond after the debate.
2.06 pm
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, my reply can be very brief for a number of reasons: first, because I spoke for rather longer in my opening speech than I had intended; and, secondly, because the Minister's reply was expert and comprehensive and dealt with most of the points.
This debate has indicated the wisdom of the Government's decision to have debates on the committee's annual report. This is the second one we have had here and there have been two in the other place. This is new and reflects the way in which the committee and public scrutiny have developed. It is a very welcome step. I am only sorry that the speech of my good friend Lord Campbell-Savours was cut short because of the conventions of Grand Committee. I am sure that he will never let that happen again. I certainly would not wish it to happen again.
This has been a very good debate. I was rather disconcerted to find myself agreeing with so much of what the opposition spokesman, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said. There were only a couple of points that I disagreed with. The Minister will be pleased to hear that perhaps I am returning to type. She described what was happening in the intelligence area as reflecting uncertainty and muddling along. That is the wrong impression. There have been some little local difficulties as far as the committee and the
30 Mar 2010 : Column GC558
I do not want to say anything about cybersecurity because the Minister dealt with it extremely well. A number of noble Lords referred to intercept as evidence. The committee, which has looked at this again and again in great detail, remains unconvinced that using intercept as evidence would make a useful contribution to securing successful prosecutions. Our main concern as a committee was that the interception capabilities of the intelligence agencies were not damaged by any move towards making interception material admissible. We are not surprised that the legal model of interception as evidence which was designed and tested is not viable, and certainly welcome what the Government have done in relation to that.
There was a call for judge-led inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord King, will know as well as I do, if not better, that there is an Investigatory Powers Tribunal that is little known about and little used. It can carry out investigations in individual cases, which we are not able to do, because we look at the policy. I advise all Members and people beyond this House to look at the role, nature and constitution of that tribunal to see whether it can be used in some of the cases mentioned.
The Minister was slightly hesitant on whether it was a generous step forward by the Foreign Secretary to agree to our investigator doing the two pieces of work during the Recess; I welcome it. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord King, made, but it is an acceptance of the principle, and we or our successors can make sure that it is strengthened and reinforced when we come back.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was kind and generous about the work being done by the committee and was concerned about my level of activity. I say to him that the committee has effectively met every Tuesday when the Houses are sitting. Fortunately, the Scottish Parliament sits on Wednesday and Thursday, which makes life a lot easier.
There has been a groundswell of opinion from both sides of the House that there needs to be a fundamental change in the nature of our committee. That has been discussed by the committee. We understand the pros and cons. I understand the comments made from both government and opposition Members that moving to the Ministry of Justice may be tinkering with the set-up and is not the fundamental and necessary change. When an opinion comes from both the noble Lord, Lord King, and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, everyone needs to take account of it; it is not often that they agree on these kind of things. I am sure that they also agree that the matter needs to be looked at
30 Mar 2010 : Column GC559
I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord King, said in relation to more Members from this House, whatever the structure. I find it difficult being the only such Member. It is wrong that there be only one Member from this House, on something on which we and the other place are both interested. Whatever changes take place-whatever the structure, whether the committee is parliamentary or continues to report to the Prime Minister-I hope that whoever is in government will make sure that this House is better represented.
I also carefully noted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord King, that, in the unlikely event of a Conservative Government, the chair should be from the then Opposition. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and I would take every opportunity of returning to that, if it were to happen.
30 Mar 2010 : Column GC560
This has been an extremely helpful debate. The level of information from people participating in it shows how valuable this House is in the question of scrutiny of intelligence and reinforces what the noble Lord, Lord King, said-that it should be better represented in the committee. I look forward to taking part in the debate in future years, in whatever capacity.
Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report for 2009-10 (Cm 7844)
Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report for 2009-10 (Cm 7844)
Considered in Grand Committee
Moved By Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report for 2009-10 (Cm 7844).
Committee adjourned at 2.15 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |