13 Feb 08 Looking back on 2007, Patrick Mercer OBE MP applauds the Government’s adoption of Conservative policy in appointing a dedicated minister Lord West to head the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism, thereby leaving the Civil Contingencies Secretariat to continue its overseeing role on all matters of resilience. Just over four years ago I was asked by the (then) leader of the Conservative Party, Iain Duncan Smith, to become Shadow Minister for Homeland Security. Although I eventually had to vacate this role, the experience left me with an insight which has proven to be invaluable. The prime reason behind the creation of the job was its potential for pressurising the Government into creating a similar post. This was a stick with which we beat a series of Home Secretaries in the most benign way possible. Clearly, it’s in the nation’s interest to have the best possible security in place and, in the Conservative Party’s view, the Government needed to appoint a single minister of Cabinet rank to co-ordinate the national effort. Well, I’m glad to say the Government has done just that. Last June, Admiral Lord Alan West of Spithead was appointed to the post of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Security and Counter-Terrorism (though he has yet to be invited to join Gordon Brown’s Cabinet). It might be worth looking at the challenges that faced him. Prepare, prevent, protect, pursue First, the Government rightly, in my opinion has decided that Lord West should concentrate primarily on the terrorist threat to this country. Hence the designation of the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism. While the Civil Contingencies Secretariat will continue to oversee all matters of resilience, both man-made and natural, Lord West’s ‘empire’ concentrates solely on the fight against terror. The single greatest hurdle lies in giving a coherence to the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, otherwise known as Project Contest. Intellectually, that strategy is very sound, for it revolves around the four ‘P’s: prepare, prevent, protect and pursue. These four work streams are self-explanatory, and they follow on the tenets of many other counter-terrorist campaigns by encapsulating and focusing on the distinct strands of the strategy. A strategy, though, is only as good as the delivery that follows its articulation. After the suicide bombings in London during the summer of 2005, the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) was duly unleashed upon Project Contest. The PMDU does what it says on the tin, and produced some pretty damning verdicts on Contest. For instance, the question of: “Who’s in charge?” was asked. Targets and meetings were being noted, and yet delivery wasn’t assessed. In short, although intellectually sound, Project Contest was simply not producing the goods. Unaccountably, the PMDU’s verdict failed to galvanise the Home Office. That only happened once the Heathrow bombing plot was uncovered last summer. Then, all of a sudden there were meetings at the highest level between relevant Departments of State. In the final days of the Blair regime, it became clear the Government was suddenly conscious not just of the physical threat posed by mass casualty terrorism, but also the political threat. I’ve no doubt the experiences of the Spanish Government following the terrible carnage in Madrid served as an exemplar. I just cannot understand why it took so long for our own Government to come to terms with the situation on home shores. As a member of the Opposition, I should oppose everything and propose nothing, but that wouldn’t be too helpful. With the appointment of Lord West, the Government has finally begun to move in the right direction. We’re seeing quantum leaps in terms of improved performance across the Contest strategy. That’s why I was more than happy to assist Lord West during the summer with the protect strand of the review he was conducting into the safety of crowded public places. The debate over detention The first big battle of 2008 concerns how long terrorism suspects will be held without charge. Two years ago the Government insisted that nothing less than a 90-day detention would do but, after having lost a subsequent vote in the Chamber, the House settled on 28 days’ detention without charge. In my view this is already too much, but the Government decided to revisit the argument (with an initial request that 42 days be granted in exceptional circumstances). While I can empathise with Labour’s and some police officers’ desire to extend this detention period, I cannot sympathise with it. In my view, any extension beyond the over-generous 28 days will simply lead to accusations by our ‘enemies’ that we have re-introduced internment in another guise. I hope that the House is sensible to the importance of this issue, and that party politics do not prevail but don’t hold your breath! Session 2008-09, 27 January 2009 Project CONTEST: Counter-Terrorism Strategy The Home Affairs Sub-Committee will hold its first evidence session of the Sub-Committee’s inquiry into Project CONTEST: The Government’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy on Thursday 29 January 2009. At 10.15 am Location: Committee Room 15 The session will be open to the public on a first come, first served basis. There is no system for the prior reservation of seats in Committee Rooms. It is advisable to allow about 20 minutes to pass through security checks. Committee room and timing are subject to change. NOTES TO EDITORS: The Sub-Committee membership is as follows: Patrick Mercer (Con) (Newark) (Chairman) *********************************** 67 pages on intercept evidence (Chilcot Report) http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7324/7324.pdf Home affairs, Debates http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhaff/180/8021901.htm Contest strategy is taking shape
Home Affairs Sub-Committee Oral Evidence Session
Ms Karen Buck (Lab) (Regent’s Park & Kensington North)
Mr David T. C. Davies (Con) (Monmouth)
Martin Salter (Lab) (Reading West)
Thursday 5 February 2009
This is its first debate-look out for it when printed please.
Posts
