Defence Select Committee hears from MOD and Home Office representatives

By a special correspondent

Terrorist radicalisation will take thirty years to eradicate, a Committee of MPs heard today.

During the Defence Select Committee's inquiry into 'UK national security and resilience' evidence was heard from the following witnesses:

- Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth MP, Minister for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence (MOD);
- John Day, Policy Director, MOD;
- Brigadier Chapman, Military Director of Counter Terrorism and UK operations, MOD;
- Admiral Lord West of Spithead KCB DSC, Under Secretary of State for Security and Counter Terrorism, Home Office;
- Gillian McGregor, Home Office;
- Chloe Squires, Cabinet Office.

Opening the session, conservative Chair of the Committee James Arbuthnot stated that this was a preliminary inquiry and operation details should not be discussed openly in this session. The Chair asked who owned the national security strategy (NSS).

It was the Home Office, Mr Ainsworth replied. The MOD made a contribution through relevant committees, aiding planning and providing information on capabilities, he added.
Conservative Bernard Jenkins questioned if the Home Office lead on the NSS restricted its scope, in particular in relation to foreign affairs.

Lord West replied that the Home Office did not lead on the whole strategy. A senior official in the Cabinet Office, Head of Intelligence, Security and Resilience Robert Hannigan, brought all strands together and was accountable to the Prime Minister, he detailed, adding that all departments had contributed to the national security strategy. The Prime Minister owned the strategy, the peer maintained.

Mr Jenkins questioned why no single minister was responsible for the NSS.

Lord West replied that the NSS system was 'very good' and helped pull together concerns and remedies from each government department. The document was broad, he conceded, adding that the national security secretariat had also been created. Parliamentary over sight would be created shortly, the Committee heard.

The Secretariat would lead to next year's NSS, Lord West stated.

On the MOD's role, Mr Ainsworth asserted that it was 'early days' to assess whether the NSS had helped create capabilities to address security.

Mr Day added that the NSS was a planning document, helping to plan future policy. Defence strategic guidance was being informed by this, he argued.

Conservative Adam Holloway asked if greater sensitivity in foreign policy would help the fight against terrorism.

In reply, Mr Ainsworth questioned the MP's assertion that this fight was not working. The whole of Government needed to explain foreign policy in the most positive terms, he stated.

Lord West argued that a 'huge amount' had been done to tackle terrorism. The Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT) had been a success, he maintained, highlighting positive work in the areas of protection and prevention.

A weekly security meeting got together people from each department and briefings from agencies were heard, Lord West stated. The threat had not gone away but people should be 'very proud' of what had been done, he added.

Moreover, a positive communications strategy and engagement with British Muslims were also having an effect on terrorism, Lord West stated. However, radicalisation would take thirty years to tackle, he warned.

Liberal Democrat Mike Hancock asked how success in engaging with Muslim communities was measured.

In reply, Lord West stated that public service agreements (PSAs) for countering terrorism were now in place. However, empirical evidence was hard to find, he conceded, detailing that funding was being put into sport facilities and prisons to try and tackle people being dragged into terrorist activity.

Labour MP Brian Jenkins asked if different departments reported to the top and whether the work with the MOD had changed.

Responding, Mr Day stated that cross departmental working was becoming the norm. An Afghan strategy group brought together all key departments, including the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development (DfID), he stated, creating a joined up strategy for the country.

This was the vehicle in which a joined up strategy was implemented on the ground and helped measure success in the country, Mr Day went on to state. Information on Iraq and Afghanistan was coordinated with Home Office information, he stated, adding that the NSS had brought about a change of culture.

Labour MP John Smith asked if terrorist threats had been tackled through the NSS.
The MOD was constantly responding to requests to work with other departments across Whitehall, Mr Ainsworth stated.

Pressed further, Lord West stated that a joining up delivered through the NSS was better than ever before. On counter terrorism and the OSCT, Lord West stated that successes had stopped thousands of people being killed. The doubling of the security service had meant that more individuals were monitored, helping the fight against terrorism, he stated.

Labour MP Dai Havard asked about the OSCT, to which Lord West stated that it led on national security. The MP questioned if one minister should be responsible for the NSS.

Responding, Lord West stated that coordination across Government could be indentified. The Department of Health led on pandemics and all strands were connected to the Prime Minister, he stated, adding that a final decision on having a minister had not been made yet.

Mr Day stated that a decision on such an individual minister had to be made on whether they would be a coordinator or in charge of government departments. The former model was already in place under the remit of a single official, he detailed.

Labour MP David Hamilton raised the issue of devolution. A lead department for every analysed threat was in place, Mr Ainsworth stated, adding that help to devolved administrations would be given on issues which were devolved to them.

Lord West stated that defence and counter terrorism were reserved issues. Devolved administrations sat on the Cabinet Committee, ensuring that they were involved in the making of policy, he confirmed.
Debates on whether there should be single minister had been debated for the past 15 months, Lord West confirmed.

Mr Hancock argued that most people would welcome such a move.

The MOD brought capabilities and understanding to the table, Mr Day maintained. A range of niche capabilities and a 'backup' were provided by the department, he maintained.

Brian Jenkins asked about the role of the security coordinator, adding that it was better to have a minister, who was accountable to parliament, in such a role.

Ministers must be accountable at the end of the day, Mr Ainsworth conceded, adding that the information flow needed to be coordinated. There was an ability to bring ministers together to help that information flow, he added.

Pressed by Mr Havard on whether debates on this were on going, Mr Ainsworth stated that this would lead to a single person being accountable for all issues, from flu pandemics to maritime threats. This would create a 'strange and far reaching department', he argued.

The Prime Minister was responsible for the NSS and he was tied up with other issues at present, Lord West stated. The coordination in the Cabinet Office worked well at present, he insisted.

The Chair asserted that it was a year since the NSS had been published, adding that parliamentarians still did not have a full grasp of it.

Mr Holloway asked if unity of command and unity of purpose was seen in the UK.

Lord West stated that a clear assessment of the threat was apparent and a wide ranging response, encompassing flu pandemics to flooding, was in place. People should be congratulated for this move, he argued.

Bernard Jenkin asked why the security coordinator was not before the committee to answer questions.

Lord West stated that he would take responsibility for this. Pressed further on the need for a single minister on this issue, the peer asserted that there was no security threats not dealt with by the appropriate people in the UK.

Mr Hancock asked about resilience and how many people in the armed services were available to play a role in security.

In reply, Mr Ainsworth stated that there was a structure for Cabinet Office personnel to find such information out.

On how Government agencies could make better use of capabilities of the Counter Terrorism Science and Technology Centre (CTSTC), Mr Ainsworth detailed that facilities were made use of. The compendium made clear what was available, he stated, adding that a non-classified document was also available.

Immediate response teams were used from the CTSTC, Brigadier Chapman detailed.

Mr Day stated that the compendium contained all issues that needed to be addressed.

Labour MP David Crausby asked what structures were in place to work with UK police forces.

Commander in Chief Land was a joint commander in charge of ensuring that defence coordinated with other departments, Mr Ainsworth detailed.

Mr Crausby asked if inter agency training took place between MOD and police staff.

A counter terrorism exercise was carried out each year and three resilience exercises took place, Mr Ainsworth detailed. Niche capabilities were the responsibility of the MOD, including air rapid reaction and maritime policy, he maintained, adding that the department was charged with ensuring their readiness.

Mr Day stated that the Army's non-deployable brigade structure was designed for a command and control and an assistance structure.

Continuing on this, Mr Havard stated that the mountain rescue team was built around good communications. The military had to be able to talk to such agencies and they needed the ability to talk to each other, he maintained.

Brigadier Chapman stated that the RAF had four mountain rescue teams across the country. It was hard for agencies to keep up in demands for communications, Mr Havard maintained.
Mr Crausby moved on to the defence academy, asking if 'doctrinal training' was undertaken at this establishment.

Brigadier Chapman stated that training on military and civilian support was given.

Mr Smith stated that he had been impressed on a trip to the defence academy. He asked if the unit could be used to train civil authorities and even the Cabinet.

In reply, Mr Ainsworth stated that the unit did help train other groups. Lord West added that between 160,000 and 170,000 were employed in the police and over 50,000 in the fire service.

Labour MP David Borrow asked what aid to civilian authorities was made and what capabilities were available to support civilian authorities.

Brigadier Chapman stated that at the high end, aid to civil communities when a threat to life was detected, was currently undertaken.

Mr Day stated that a list of support could be sent to the Committee, detailing classified and unclassified data.

Moving on to requests for helicopters, Brigadier Chapman stated that the MOD did lead on air and sea rescue. On changes to this, he stated that different aircraft were used for deployment abroad and for rescue purposes.

A helicopter force in the UK was needed for training purposes, Mr Ainsworth went on to state.
Mr Holloway asked what would be done to avert a large catastrophe.

The police, ambulance and fire service would take a lead role, Lord West replied, adding that defence agencies would play a role if contamination was an issue.

Pressed on whether 5,000 hospital beds could be made available at short notice, Lord West stated that the Department of Health looked into this issue. In addition, it assessed the disposal of bodies during pandemics, he added.

Bernard Jenkin asked if winches for helicopters had been addressed.

All helicopters in Afghanistan had winches, Mr Ainsworth replied. He added that he could not detail if all training helicopters had such equipment, confirming that all rescue helicopters had winches.

The NSS would address all these issues across a number of departments, Lord West added. Mr Holloway asked if a group of people worked out scenarios of terrorist attacks.

Small analysis was undertaken on this but a permanent team was not in place, Lord West replied. Various options of attacks had been supplied to the Government, he added.

The Chair questioned if more horizon scanning was needed. Lord West stated that the current structure should be 'tweaked' rather than staffing substantially increased.

On civil contingency reaction forces (CCRFs) being mobilised in 2004, Brigadier Chapman stated that these had not been deployed in the Gloucestershire floods because sufficient forces on the ground were apparent. The threshold to use CCRFs had never been met, he asserted, adding that they would be used for large scale disasters outlined earlier.

Bernard Jenkin sought assurances that reserve forces would not be cut.

A reserve review was being conducted at present, Mr Ainsworth stated, stressing that this was not resource led.

Bernard Jenkin asked whether over stretch was affecting the reactive speed of civil forces, to which Mr Ainsworth stated that this was not the case.

Since the committee's report on this, the capability of the armed forces was assessed, Mr Ainsworth confirmed, adding that the Minister rather than a senior civil servant assessed this.

On civil preparedness of local government, Lord West stated that the regional and local resilience forums, together with a range of measures, addressed this. People were now aware of what they should prepare for, he stated, adding that funding for this was adequate.

Mr Hancock spoke of local communications failures meaning that local authorities were not talking to emergency services at a local level. Lord West stated that differences were being addressed, including using the same wave bands. It was hard for police authorities to be persuaded to buy the same, compatible equipment, he stated.

On air defence, Brian Jenkins spoke about the interception of a civil aircraft by British forces after crew on the aircraft could not be contacted as they were asleep.

Mr Ainsworth stated that the aircraft was not close to being shot down. He added that he would return to the committee with further details on this.

Labour MP David Hamilton asked about being 'mentally prepared' to deal with an incident and how this was being dealt with.

Responding, Lord West stated that during the pandemic work, it was estimated that large numbers of staff would not report in but he would get back to the committee on the details of this.

On the monitoring of British waters, Lord West stated that the location of anything above fifty feet in length was known. He conceded that information on smaller vessels was not monitored as this would be far too difficult to collect and collate.

Bernard Jenkin asked who had 'gold command' over British waters.

The maritime coast guard agency would take control over spillages, Lord West replied. The 2005 fleet review for the first time assessed all agencies, he added.

On coordination for ports, raised by Mr Havard, Lord West detailed that the Transport Security and Contingencies Directorate (TRANSEC) led on issues relating to ports.

Mr Holloway asked if there was a legal framework for the state to take items, such as ships or beds, from the private sector to help tackle a terrorist attack.

In reply, Lord West stated that in terms of a military emergency, such powers could be given. Tackled on whether private hospitals could be taken over, Lord West stated that the civil contingencies act laid out powers in this area.

Tackled by Mr Holloway on who was in charge, Lord West stated that Cobra would meet in the event of a crisis and decisions would be made.

Bernard Jenkin argued that the public needed to be more informed about threats to the UK.

This was the reason why the NSS had been published, Mr Ainsworth asserted.

On power over direction of labour, Lord West stated that the civil contingencies act could be used for this.