| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the response of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. A theme from all sides of the House, both in the Statement and in the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Dholakia, is that we, as British citizens, must be united in our trenchant opposition to the acts of terror committed against the people of our country. It is right that we remember that the victims who were adversely affected by this terrible event, both the injured and those who tragically died, came from all our communities. It involved all the faiths who live in this country and the victims came in all complexions. It is therefore extremely important that the two speeches and the government response say that we should be a united country. There is a clear distinction between those of us who believe in democracy and freedom and those who do not. I welcome those sentiments.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about the details and why he would suggest that a public inquiry might be preferred. However, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that it would be premature for us to do that. I apologise to the noble Lord for his not having the advantage of having the full report before coming to this debate and having to reply on behalf of his party. I will do all I can to ensure that he receives that report as soon as possible.
However, we must be clear that much is known. We have been much advantaged by the information given to the Intelligence Security Committee and its report. With your Lordships' permission, I will highlight a few of the issues that it told us about. First, the committee had access to all the relevant intelligence material. I know that no one in this House questions the
11 May 2006 : Column 1098
committee's independence. The report confirms that the Security Service came across the two individuals—subsequently identified as Kahn and Tanweer—on the peripheries of another investigation. However, there were three significant factors. First, it was only after 7 July that the service was able fully to identify the two men. Secondly, there was no intelligence at the time that they were interested in planning an attack on the United Kingdom. Thirdly, the intelligence of the time suggested that their focus was on training and insurgent operations in Pakistan, and fraud.
It is important for us to remember the committee's assessment, which is to be found on page 16, paragraph 56. It said:
"We conclude that, in light of the other priority investigations being conducted and the limitations on Security Service resources, the decisions not to give greater investigative priority to these two individuals were understandable".
We have collected a volume of information. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is as anxious as we that the real concentration must be on using our resources to protect the people of this country from further attacks. It is not insignificant that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary felt it was proper to share with the other place—and, indeed, your Lordships—that there had been a successful deflection of three further attacks since 7 July. Members of this House will know what a significant statement that was.
The main focus must now be on the continued protection we need to keep the people of our country safe. In the Statement, my right honourable friend made clear just how much resource has now been made available—we have quadrupled in one sense, and doubled in another: £1 billion to £2 billion. It is important to remember what the security services have said. This work must be carefully managed and done at a high degree of excellence if we are receive the protection which people in this country deserve. It is clear from the recommendations that the expansion in the service is being developed as rapidly as can safely be achieved in order to keep that level of integrity.
Of course, we must continue to look at this issue. My right honourable friend in the other place said that he would consider asking the chairman of the committee—my right honourable friend Paul Murphy—to look, with his committee, further. I know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will give that further attention. I commend the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Kingsland, because they demonstrate that politicians in this House and the other place, irrespective of party, are determined that those who would visit terror on our streets will not succeed.
2.55 pm
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is important because, for the first time, it identifies and correctly describes the current threat to the United Kingdom. Does the noble Baroness agree that, if the Terrorism Act 2006 had been in force at the time, it follows from what she has said that it would not have prevented the
11 May 2006 : Column 1099
bombing on 7 July? Does she further agree that, if we are to defend ourselves against such attacks in the future, our best course is to avoid what the noble Lord, Lord Condon, described from these Benches as counter-productive legislation, since it only plays into the hands of the propagandists?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord that the new legislation would have had no impact. This House debated long and hard the issues that impinge upon radicalisation. From the information we now have, it is clear that these young men, who would, for all intents and purposes appear to be ordinary, decent young men—three of them well integrated—were radicalised. The methods used to radicalise them potentially came through a plethora of sources, whether through the internet or other material. If anything, it tragically underlines how important it is to be resolute in our opposition to such radicalisation and the means through which it comes.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I join others in thanking the Minister for repeating this important Statement. I entirely agree with one of the conclusions: that the problem is one of trying to involve Muslim youth more in this country and national society.
However, I note that when the Minister listed various measures by which we can counter the Islamic threat, she did not refer to foreign policy. I ask her to draw the attention of her new colleague, Mrs Beckett, to the important fact that a positive, active and balanced foreign policy towards the problems of the Middle East and the misunderstandings and serious resentments of the rest of the Islamic world—which vastly outnumbers the Middle East—would do more than anything to reduce the resentments which, frankly, lie behind some of these terrible actions.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely understand the thrust of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wright. That is why the Statement made reference to the importance of international co-operation and understanding.
The truth is that many of the problems with which we are now jointly and severally faced have an international dimension. We must therefore all think more globally than we have hitherto been obliged to do. So things are changing, and I can assure the noble Lord that the policy that we intend to advocate and complete on this issue will be across government. That is why when I say that it will take us all, I mean every individual, every agency and every department of state.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I welcome the Statement by my noble friend. I speak as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and I am grateful for the positive comments she has made about the ISC report and for the generous response of the Government to the report, its recommendations and its conclusions.
11 May 2006 : Column 1100
I shall make two points to my noble friend. I am particularly pleased that the Government have responded so positively to our comments and recommendations on the system of threat level and alert states. We recommended greater transparency and that thought be given to what could be put into the public domain. The Government have said in their response that they have accepted that recommendation and will be doing that. I would like an assurance from the Minister that that will happen as soon as possible.
Does the Minister agree that the cases of Khan and Tanweer provide a dramatic example of the terrible dilemmas and choices that any security service has to make? My noble friend enumerated the facts about those people. They were on the radar screen of the security service—if one wants to put it like that—but as two unidentified men among a group of unidentified men on the periphery of an ongoing investigation that had great importance for the security service. Decisions have to be made about where resources are put in following up leads, with prime priority on anything that carries a risk of loss of life. There was no intelligence to indicate that any of those on the periphery had anything to do with a threat to life in the UK. Where to put priorities is always a question for the security service. It has to put them where it has intelligence that there is a real threat to the United Kingdom. When doing that, there is no guarantee that if resources are put into a different place something equally awful would not happen because the resources had not been used somewhere else. Does the Minister not agree that these two cases illustrate the tremendously difficult job that our security service has to do and has done so well in thwarting so many attacks but, unfortunately, not the one last July?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |