EUC Report: Internal Security Strategy

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords on the committee in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his excellent chairmanship of the sub-committee. His background and experience made him an ideal chairman to guide the committee through evidence-taking and producing what I believe is a very important report. I am delighted to be speaking as a member of that committee. I also thank the members of the support team, led by Michael Collon, who supported and still support the committee so ably.

Security, unfortunately, is an increasingly important subject touching all our lives, whether at airports, entering government buildings or using public transport. It even touches the parking arrangements in your Lordships’ House. Securing the physical safety of their citizens is surely the most important task of any Government and in this modern age, with the world getting smaller through travel and global communications, as other speakers have said, that cannot be achieved unilaterally. It follows, therefore, whatever your views are of the European Union, that increased co-operation between friendly countries is an essential requisite of reducing security risks from those who would do us harm for political, ideological or extreme and fanatical religious reasons. As a person who has been involved in security issues for most of his life—in the police service, with the FBI and now in the private sector—I welcome the treaty of Lisbon, which allowed the European Council to adopt and implement an internal security strategy. It is that strategy, which was set out in the Commission communication in November 2010, that we are considering in this debate.

Statistically, the risk of any of us being involved in a life-threatening security incident is very small. However, as somebody once said, politicians tend to use statistics rather like a drunk uses a lamp-post—more for support than illumination. I knew a millionaire who was extremely worried about flying because of the increased security threat. He employed a security consultant to research the chances of his getting on aircraft where there was a bomb. The consultant did his work. He looked at all the flights and all the incidents, and he worked out that there was something like a 5 million:1 chance against being on an aircraft on which there was a bomb. However, the millionaire was not happy and wanted further work done. He wanted to know how he could lengthen the odds even further. The advice came back: “What you have to do is carry a bomb on to a plane yourself in insulated hand luggage”. “How will that assist?”, he asked. “Well”, the consultant said, “the chances of two strangers each having a bomb on the same plane are infinitesimal”. That sums up the difficulty with statistics.

The five steps set out in the report are comprehensive, dealing with international crime, the prevention of terrorism, security in cyberspace, improved border management and increased resilience to crises and disasters. Clearly, time will not permit me to cover all five items. I intend to concentrate very briefly on just three: international crime networks, terrorism and cybercrime.

By the nature of the beast, the international criminal knows no boundaries. Anything we can do to disrupt his travel arrangements, his communications or the secreting of his ill gotten gains is a plus. The difficulty at an operational level is that the police and security services have to operate within the law. I have to add that it is proper that they do so. As we have seen in other countries, if state officials are above the law we are all finished. Having said that, for those people who know no rules, we may well have to change our rules.

As my noble friend Lord Judd said, there is a very fine balance to be drawn between the restriction of civil liberties and human rights. After all, one man’s right to do something may well be an infringement of his neighbour’s liberty not to have to tolerate such behaviour. It is a dilemma that policemen have wrestled with throughout the ages. In this regard, we can deal with international crime and terrorism together. We have to co-operate totally with other right-thinking countries, sharing intelligence where possible, and acting together operationally if required so that there are very few hiding places. If the conspirators cannot communicate with or meet each other—or, in the case of terrorists, train and practise their dark arts—we are succeeding. If the price of freedom is to have surveillance cameras in public places, in some cases it is a price we have to pay. We have seen the success that it reaps, with terrorists, rapists and murderers being brought to justice. They never learn; we still see bank robbers on “Crimewatch” smiling at the camera.

Modern technology must be used and shared. We all know the value of DNA in bringing terrorists and murderers to justice many years after they thought that they had escaped the long arm of the law. As has been said, we must share these innovations with our law enforcement partners in other jurisdictions. I welcome the report’s endorsement of the work of joint investigation teams. This is particularly true when seizing criminal assets and establishing a functioning asset recovery office in each member state. This should be given a higher priority.

I appreciate that it is more difficult to deal with terrorists who are prepared to commit suicide. That is where vigilance and community intelligence are so important, again working together at local, national and international level. That is why the comments about reducing the incidence of stop and search made last week by the new commissioner at Scotland Yard, Bernard Hogan-Howe, are so important. He would make that process more intelligence-led. This is important because it should reduce the alienation of the police within the community they serve, thereby increasing the chances of important intelligence concerning serious crime and terrorism being brought to their attention. In this country we police by consent and we need the support and real assistance of the community, which can greatly help us in dealing with internal security.

The new kid on the block is cybercrime, as been mentioned in every speech. As our report states, the Government are to be congratulated on the priority given to cybercrime in the UK security strategy. As with many things, the European Union is only as strong as its weakest link. However, it is not just the cybersecurity of the member states that is at risk. The Commission itself must realise that its own institutions, networks and agencies are vulnerable too and take the necessary precautions; and, where they fall short, we must assist them.

Overall, I believe that we are heading in the right direction. The EU communication sets out the road map and I believe that our report helps to identify the vehicle on which we should all be climbing. I commend the report to the House.

Police: Officer Numbers

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, first, I remind the noble Lord that we have a deficit and that must be tackled by seeking better value for money from every public service. That includes the police. There is no need for the noble Lord to make signs of that sort.

I accept that there has been a decline in police numbers, but there is no need to get fixated on this. At the same time, we have seen over the period that I mentioned—March 2010 to March 2011—a decline in recorded crime of 4 per cent.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, will the Minister tell us the cost of appointing police and crime commissioners and how many front-line officers that would represent?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I have always accepted that there is a cost to appointing police and crime commissioners, but we believe they will bring accountability. Accountability will be good for that service, and we will get even better value for money.

Phone Hacking

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again my noble friend makes a very good point and was right to emphasise that this evidence was adduced to Lord Justice Leveson’s committee. No doubt he will consider that and, after that, the Government will—as I said earlier, and I repeat—consider any reports made by the inquiry, particularly where it seeks legislative changes by the Government.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, given the emerging evidence of the employment of private investigators by the press involved in phone hacking, can the Minister give us an idea of when the Government intend to license such people?

[Lord Henley]

Again, my Lords, I would not want to take these matters further at this stage. I suspect that I shall repeat the same answer quite a few times during the course of this Question; we want to wait until Lord Justice Leveson has reported.

UK Border Agency

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, not without notice, but no doubt I will write to my noble friend.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, are there lessons to be learnt from the Israelis in this? While people are waiting to be assessed and interviewed by the immigration authorities, assessments are made and they are profiled, and of course in some cases they are targeted very successfully.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, obviously, lessons are always to be learnt from all around the world. No doubt, if the noble Lord wishes it, we will look at the experience of the Israelis as well as that from other parts.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a former president of the Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales. The history of the police in this country throughout their relatively short life has been one of those rollercoaster rides of success and acclaim, with periods of crisis and threats of reform. I once wrote a brief history of the association and I was struck by the cyclical recurrence of the crises, with morale and pay dropping off and politicians setting up committees and inquiries to remedy the problems—from Desborough at the beginning of the century, through the Oaksey committee and the Willink commission to the much lauded Lord Edmund-Davies inquiry, set up by the then Home Secretary, the late Lord Merlyn-Rees in 1978, followed by the controversial Sheehy inquiry in the early 1990s, which I am delighted to say the noble Lord, Lord Howard, stamped on after the disastrous stewardship of the now Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

The police service has been examined exhaustively throughout these years, and from my experience I can say that morale at the present time is at an all-time low. The police are different from other workers and play an important part in our democracy. What singles them out from other employees? First, there is the importance of the job itself. No civilised society can function without the enforcement of the law and the maintenance of order in a way that is acceptable to the populace. Secondly, there is the statutory prohibition of industrial action as a bargaining chip. It is extremely important, therefore, that Governments treat their police officers honourably and do not lose sight of the point. This is probably the culminant to which the noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred.

This is an important Bill that contains many important provisions. In the short time available, I intend to deal with one particular aspect that, as other noble Lords have mentioned, has caused great concern. I come to the debate with 35 years’ service in the police service but also 12 years in your Lordships’ House, and no proposed change to policing has caused me more concern than this particular Bill.

By popular acclaim, the United Kingdom sets the gold standard for policing in that we police by popular consent, and much to the surprise of foreign visitors the police are largely unarmed. I have lived through many reforming Home Secretaries from all parties, but for all the changes that have been advocated, and in some cases achieved, none previously tried to get the police involved in politics. The strength of the British policing model is the operational impartiality and independence of the police, and this was achieved after many scandals. Some noble Lords will remember the old rotten watch committee system of the 1950s that led to the undue influence of petty politicians on operational matters, and in some cases directly to police corruption.

The trick is to have an operationally impartial and independent police service that is also truly accountable. I believe that this was achieved with the development of the modern tripartite system of governance, with the chief constable working with the police committee and the Home Office. He is accountable locally to the public he polices through the guidance of elected members of the police authorities and to some extent through elected MPs, who can question the Home Secretary. The same Home Secretary, of course, exercises governance on national issues such as organised crime and terrorism. The chief constable of a force is also accountable to the local community through a plethora of consultation mechanisms in his police area, and of course ultimately he is accountable to the law through the courts.

Many years ago, as a superintendent, I spent some months with the FBI. I got to know a number of police chiefs and county sheriffs in the United States. It became obvious to me quite soon that the appointed town police chief was totally beholden to the elected town politician, who had the power to hire and fire. If the politician wanted the police to target a particular problem, which might be to his electoral advantage, he would not hesitate to interfere. In my experience, it was a foolhardy police chief who challenged his political master. If your job depends on it, you will by nature be reluctant to risk saying, “This is my operational decision, not yours”. Noble Lords live in the real world, and that is common sense.

With the sheriff, who is directly elected, it is in a sense worse. He is generally elected on a local ticket that deals with real problems in his area. That is fine as far as it goes, but it reduces his interest in regional problems and even more so in the national scene. The worrying thing is that he could be elected almost on a single issue, and sometimes is. All his deputies are appointed by him, and my experience was of them leaving for the weekend to canvass for the sheriff when he was due for re-election. They had to; their jobs depended on it. I found that bringing raw politics into this arena can lead to corruption.

In Britain, the constable’s oath of office emphasises a duty to impartiality and accountability to the law. We should be careful not to undermine his ability to honour his oath by creating a greater duty to support an elected politician’s chosen priorities. The existing police authorities provide balance and moderation coupled with community checks and balances. It is invaluable for the chief officer to have access to such a range of community views in the whole of his geographical area, provided by a mix of people who are both appointed and elected. The big worry with the present Bill is that all this power and influence is placed on one elected police and crime commissioner. In many cases, the constituency of a PCC will be greater than that of any elected Member of the House of Commons. Some will have populations of over 1 million, cover over 20 parliamentary constituencies and five local authorities. In my judgment of local accountability, a single individual cannot possibly hope to have the same level of representation as a police authority. This creates a less inclusive form of police governance.

High-level police corruption in the United States is very great compared with Britain. In my view, that is influenced by the politicisation of the police. This is an error in the Bill. It has not been justified by any evidence from Ministers, and it puts the police service at great risk of being dragged into politics. There is still time to change, and the coalition Government should be big enough to recognise this by not enacting provisions that they will live to regret.

Police: Deployment of Workforce

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I think that the figure for the election of PCCs is £50 million, which will be every four years. It has been provided for in the spending round; it does not relate to the police budget.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness give the House her definition of a front-line police officer, and does it include officers working under cover for some length of time?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think we can rely on HMIC, which has given us a definition of front-line police officers—I am just looking for it. The inspector has said that it is indeed those officers on the street and also those officers who provide support, which he calculates as being the 60-something per cent that was mentioned. We now have a definition of front-line policing that the Government are happy to accept.

Cyberattacks: EU Committee Report

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends Lord Reid and Lord Browne on their powerful contributions to this debate, which augur well for the future of the House. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for his chairmanship of the sub-committee, of which I am a relatively new member, and for securing this important and timely debate in your Lordships’ House. His stewardship and guidance were models of how an inquiry should be chaired.

Cybercrime is a growing threat to us all. In my experience, the criminal fraternity will always find new ways to achieve its objectives by harnessing new technology and resources to try to outwit the forces of law and order. Every week, we read of new fraudulent scams to relieve the citizens of Europe, and the world, of their hard-won savings or the use of the internet to groom and subsequently abuse our children. We also hear of new squads being set up by law enforcement agencies to deal with those threats. Indeed, as has been mentioned, we heard only this week from the head of GCHQ that the Government are the target of a thousand malicious e-mails each month. Of course, that figure is increasing in line with the growth of the internet by some 60 per cent each year. It follows that these criminal entrepreneurs—that is what they are—will be recruited by intelligence services of ill disposed foreign powers to penetrate the computer systems of the liberal democracies, epitomised by the European Union countries, either to obtain secret intelligence or to damage defence systems or the basic infrastructure, which we take for granted, of the country being attacked.

We all get unwanted e-mails. I will always remember that, a few years ago, when I first came into this House, there was a debate on spam messages in your Lordships’ House. I recall a very elderly Member of your Lordships’ House, who is unfortunately no longer with us, rising to berate the Government of the day for doing nothing about them. He said: “They are always advertising the same products: body enhancements, Viagra or inkjet cartridges”. He finished by saying indignantly, “My Lords, do I look like a man who requires inkjet cartridges”?.

Our inquiry heard evidence from a number of individuals and organisations, but it is fair to say that we were disappointed by the response to our call for evidence. None the less, we should thank those who responded and gave time to assist us in our deliberations. I am pleased that the Government’s response is broadly in agreement with the committee in its criticism of the Commission. Through our examination of specific examples of cyberattacks or disasters, it became evident that, although major disruption can be caused, Great Britain is indeed a leader in Europe in dealing with such disruption; others may well follow.

If the EU is seen as a club, the club rules should set standards for dealing with cyberdisruptions or attacks that all member states should aspire to uphold. We are only as strong as our weakest link. Unlike the European Union and the states within it, the internet has no borders and, in a global economy, with multinational corporations using the internet for business, it is imperative that we have a global response to large-scale cyberattacks or disasters. The development of international rules that are properly policed would deter some countries from turning a blind eye, for whatever reason, to such attacks from within their borders.

The Commission communication was therefore a little disappointing in its lack of global response to the growing threat. To attempt to bring down a nation’s communications system, transport or banking structure is tantamount to an act of war and it would be legitimate for an organisation such as NATO to be brought into play. Not only would that be using the collective wisdom and resources of the alliance countries, but it would act as a powerful deterrent, as it has to conventional threats. The Commission report was almost silent on that. There may be some value in holding joint exercises in that area to reinforce the essential need for more co-operation among NATO countries. In my experience, it is essential for member states to carry out exercises in this area to enable them to participate more fully in future joint efforts.

The European Network and Information Security Agency, ENISA, has been mentioned. It is an important body and exercised the committee greatly, because policing the internet and dealing with criminal enterprises in this area is important. It is to be hoped that the resources can be found to reinforce ENISA so that it can extend its role. Needless to say, I am rather disappointed once again with the lukewarm response to the committee’s recommendations, which seems to raise doubts about the existence of the agency. Perhaps in reply the Minister could give us further assurance on that.

Cybercrime and terrorist attacks are a fascinating subject and I have little doubt that they will exercise us in our deliberations in the months and years to come. As we used to say in the police service, the six “p”s apply: proper planning prevents pretty poor performance. I hope that our deliberations in this area add value to planning to prepare to deal with these matters before they happen.

Freedoms and Civil Liberties

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think the House would endorse the sentiments just expressed by the noble Lord.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, how will the Government explain to the victims of serious crime the gross injustice caused by the reduction in the number of convictions which will inevitably occur following the reducing of the DNA register?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, we do not accept that that will be the case. The Government intend to ensure that the all those who have committed crimes are on the DNA register, which was not the case under the previous Government.

Samantha Stobbart

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Let me give the House the timelines. The prisoner was released on 1 July, the information about this man’s statements was given to the force on 2 July and the chief constable learnt of that information only on 4 July. She referred the matter to the IPCC the following morning; clearly she felt there was a need to do so. I cannot go beyond that at the moment because this matter is under investigation, so I cannot help the House further.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness think that there is now a powerful case for looking at the size and number of police forces?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Northumbria Police are receiving mutual aid. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been in touch with the force. If it needs any further assistance, it will certainly be given it. As for the noble Lord’s basic question of whether it is a good idea for forces to help each other, we as a party are in favour of forces joining together, or indeed merging if they wish, provided there is local support for such a move.