(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberIf you have evidence that something has happened, it is quite right to talk about, for example, drone attacks such as the one in Leipzig to which my noble friend refers. Sometimes, when I am asked questions, I want to go further than I do; I want to use language that is stronger and more powerful. However, I also recognise that, when you are a Government Minister, particularly at a sensitive time, particularly in a difficult situation such as this—this is true in the other place, and it would be true under whatever Government—you have to be extraordinarily careful about the language you use, in case you generate unintended consequences. I feel a real responsibility for that because I am not the person flying the jet, I am not the person on the ship, I am not the person undertaking various activities. My noble friend is absolutely right that, where we have the evidence, we have to say what has happened and explain the threat to the British people, while at the same time being extraordinarily careful with the language that we use in case, as I said, we generate unintended consequences.
The Minister has referred to cyber attacks, drone probing and issues raised by other Members of the House, but these are just part of the picture. There are also threats to factories doing things for Ukrainians, sabotage of them, murder in the London streets. There have been firebombs on DHL aircraft. What the shadow fleet is doing at sea is equally worrying, and, of course, we have had the threat to our undersea cables; if we lose those, it would be a disaster for us. I am very grateful for what the Minister has said so far, but the scale and range of what the Russians are doing to us is broader than has been so far said in this House, and that is beyond conventional espionage and all the other things they do. Does the Minister agree?
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. She is absolutely right. It is a sin of omission not to mention underwater cables and some of the other points that she made. Being able to explain that to the British people is important. Part of the problem, as she will know better than me from the responsibility that she had, is that some of the work the services do, along with others, to protect the country is unreported in many respects but it deals with many of these issues. I am proud of the work the services do and of the bravery and courage they show. We often talk about our Armed Forces, and quite rightly, but day in and day out MI5, MI6 and other intelligence services protect us and the public from harm, both at home and abroad, and we should celebrate what they do as well.
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the things that is encouraging about David Anderson’s report is the clear evidence of a complete lack of complacency in both the Metropolitan Police and MI5 and the self-criticism of their own performance? That has led to their producing 126 recommendations. David Anderson, as far as he goes, supports those recommendations, and we know that the ISC will look at them in detail. As the Minister said, there will also be other ways in which their performance will be scrutinised in the inquests. I, for one—and, obviously, I declare a strong interest—am proud that everyone I know who has been working on this, working extremely closely with the Met, has looked with great self-criticism at their own performance.
Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the noble Lord’s question. A great amount of information from the public reaches both the police and the Security Service. That does not undermine the discussions on the need for community policing, but many plots have been stopped because of information from members of the public in the first instance. People are not ignorant of the need to help.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, with her extensive experience in this field. She is of course right that we can be proud of how the police and MI5 have addressed their own performance in the way that these cases have been investigated. David Anderson is very clear that their process was thorough and fair. Nevertheless, it is reassuring to us all that we did commission David Anderson to do this exercise. It was not that the police and MI5 were not trusted to do the job but, on some occasions, we need that added element of reassurance which we have received clearly from Mr Anderson.
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberI am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that intervention. Of course they must look at civil liberties in the round when addressing this issue.
I just wonder whether the noble Lord has considered the possibility that the security and intelligence agencies may also have an interest in civil liberties. It is not one side against the other. In deciding what you go for, that is a key part of the provision.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Yes, of course I understand that for the security agencies, at every point when they are deciding to apply for warrants or to carry out intrusive activities, civil liberties are at the forefront of their minds within the framework provided to them by the law.
I come back to the point that a form of this privacy and civil liberties board has been agreed by all sides and put into legislation, but the Government have not enacted it. This is a variation on what is already on the statute book, and something that all sides have previously considered and agreed to.
Throughout the debates on the Bill, the Government have maintained that it is world-leading legislation. I believe that it can be regarded as such only if the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board is a part of it. I beg to move.