Last week at ten hours notice I was asked to speak at a major conference on security and resilience (I’m not proud – I knew I was standing in for another speaker who had dropped out at the last moment).  One of the topics that came up was the importance of small and medium-sized businesses in the supply chains of parts of the critical national infrastructure and the fact that such businesses are often likely to be less well-protected in terms of cyber security.  The consensus view was that more needed to be done to encourage and support such businesses to adopt better security.

I raised the issue again this morning at a private briefing given by Melissa Hathaway, the former Senior Director for Cyberspace for the US National Security and Homeland Security Councils.  She agreed with my concerns on the matter, but then took my breath away by referring to a current case working its way through the US Courts (which I had not previously heard about) where a bank is suing a company for not having adequate internet security in connecting to the bank for internet banking purposes.

What seems to have happened is this:

In early November 2009, cyber thieves initiated a series of unauthorized wire transfers totaling $801,495 out of the account of Hillary Machinery, a Texas-based machine equipment company.   The bank, PlainsCapital, managed to retrieve roughly $600,000 of that money, but are now suing the company for the balance on the basis that the bank had processed the transfers in good faith.  Apparently, the fraudulent transactions were initiated using Hillary’s valid online banking credentials.

It would appear that the transfers were initiated from computers in Romania and Italy, among others, and sent to accounts in Ukraine, Russia and other Eastern European nations – allegedly using credentials stolen from the computers of Hillary Machinery.

No doubt, this case will make some businesses think twice about whether their own internet security is good enough.  It may also make them think twice about using internet banking.

However, there has to be a better way of ensuring that businesses improve their own security without the banks resorting to suing their customers.

Whenever I am asked to speak about the lessons of the 7/7 bombings or emergency preparedness generally, one of the points I make is about the importance of exercises that test the effectiveness of emergency plans and enable different agencies to get used to working together under stress conditions.

However, my attention has been drawn to an article in the Las Vegas Sun which describes an exercise conducted by the  St. Rose Dominican Hospital.  This was intended to test the emergency preparedness of hospital staff, but I think most people would agree that hospital administrators may have taken things a bit too far.

According to the article, the exercise started when

“an off-duty cop pretending to be a terrorist stormed into a hospital intensive care unit brandishing a handgun, which he pointed at nurses while herding them down a corridor and into a room.”

Only then were they told that it was a training exercise.

And as the article explains:

“The staff at St. Rose Dominican Hospitals-Siena Campus, where the incident took place Monday morning, found the exercise more traumatizing than instructive.

Hospital employees would have been justified in fearing for their lives.

Just last year, Henderson police shot and killed an armed, hostile man in the emergency room. So it would make sense that security and emergency preparedness have been a focus at the hospital.

But in Monday’s incident, which occurred in a unit that houses the hospital’s sickest patients, nurses, patients and their families did not know it was a drill.”

The hospital’s director of public policy and external affairs has apologized for any distress caused by the incident; saying that there was an

“ongoing effort to try and make (emergency preparedness drills) as realistic as possible.”

And went on to say:

“the goal is not to scare or harm anyone.”

So that’s alright then.

Oral Questions in the Lords highlighted the dilemmas being faced by the new Coalition Government in trying to reconcile their previous position – or rather positions (the LibDems don’t necessarily have the same view as the Tories) – and the reality of Government.

Baroness Neville-Jones, the Security Minister, was pressed repeatedly by Labour Peeers (including me) on the problems they face following the decision by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission that two individuals pose a “severe threat” to national security but cannot be deported to their country of origin.

Previously firm commitments have now become “reviews” and subject o indeterminate timescales 0r – in the case of the intention to repeal the Human Rights Act airbrushed from history:

“Question

11.35 am

Asked By Lord Corbett of Castle Vale

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they decided not to contest the judgment of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on 18 May that two men considered a “serious threat” to national security could not be deported to Pakistan.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones): My Lords, to appeal further there must be present an arguable material error of law in the judgment. The decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission was studied closely by officials and the Queen’s Counsel and no such error was found. Consequently, there were no grounds on which to contest the decision. However, departments—including, notably, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—continue to pursue the circumstances in which it would be possible to return these men to Pakistan.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission decided that these two terrorist suspects—they were never charged—could not be deported to Pakistan because of that country’s abuse of legal and human rights. Does that not reinforce what was said to be the Government’s determination to repeal the Human Rights Act? If that is the case, does it have the enthusiastic support of the Liberal Democrats?

Baroness Neville-Jones: I can recognise wedge-driving when I see it. I do not think that there is a commitment on the part of the coalition to repeal the Human Rights Act. We are certainly going to look at the possibility of a Bill of Rights which is in conformity with the obligations that we have under the Human Rights Act.

Lord Howarth of Newport: What will the coalition do about control orders, of which the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrat Party and the judges were so critical in recent years? Now that it has responsibility for the lives and safety of the people of this country, what will it do when there is the apprehension of individuals who there is good reason to believe are terrorists; who cannot be deported because of our adherence to the European convention; and against whom the evidence to secure a conviction cannot be produced in court for good reasons of national security?

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, there are two parts to that question. In the particular case we are looking at, I can assure the House that appropriate safety measures have been taken in respect of the individuals concerned. As for control orders, the House may be aware that the coalition has a commitment to review their use. I cannot go further on what the outcome of that review will be until such time as we have conducted it. However, it is clear that we would like to reduce our reliance on such measures as is consistent with the security of this nation.

Lord Dubs: Would not one way of reducing dependence on control orders be to look again at the question of intercept evidence? Will the Minister indicate whether the coalition is looking at the possibility that intercept evidence might be used in our courts?

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, as the House will be aware, the Chilcot commission is conducting its work but has not yet finished it. I have had discussions on this and I am quite satisfied that the serious work being done by the Chilcot commission needs to be concluded. As the noble Lord knows, we would like to be able to introduce intercept evidence but we have to await the outcome of that work. We will come back to the House.

Lord Avebury: In the SIAC judgment to which the Question refers, was there not a substantial discussion of the risk that these two people, if sent back to Pakistan, would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and that therefore it would have been a breach of the ECHR? However, did not SIAC also add that if the two people who went back voluntarily were not subjected to treatment of that kind, the question of whether the two individuals the subject of the Question might be deported could be revisited?

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, the individuals who returned voluntarily did so many months ago, before the hearing. That fact is relevant to the subsequent consideration of the individuals referred to in the Question. The fact that they returned and were not ill treated was one of the reasons for the Government considering that Nasser and Khan would not be ill treated on return. However, the court took the view that this was not sufficiently reliable in their case. The ability to return the two men can be revisited if circumstances change, and we are working on creating the circumstances in which that might be possible.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, does not the issue whether these two individuals should be deported raise a number of fundamental questions about the way in which national security is to be pursued? First, had intercept been available as evidence, would it have provided a different route for dealing with the individuals? Secondly, do the costs associated with the regime being put around the individuals represent the most efficient way of managing individuals who are considered a severe threat to the UK?

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, those are very good questions. I shall not trespass on the hypothetical question of whether it would have been different had we had intercept as evidence. It is clearly a relevant issue, which is one of the reasons why we want to explore its availability. As for control orders, cost is clearly one element in considering what we need to do to keep the people of this country safe. The efficiency of the regime is also an element. We are considering precisely those issues in our review of control orders.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but the Minister’s answer raises a number of questions. First, when will the control order study be finished? Are we looking at something that is fairly rapid? The next relates to the resources being used to look at subjects of interest. There is a difficult balance to be struck between the cost of control orders and the cost of doing it in other ways. I am concerned that, as the CSR comes galloping down the track towards us, we can ensure that we have the money required for surveillance of the subjects of interest. As the Minister well knows, it is a very close-run thing. I want to be sure that that money will be protected.

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, the Government will not—I repeat not—put the safety of this country at risk. As for the noble Lord’s question on the review of control orders, I can tell your Lordships’ House that we are looking at it now; it is an issue for the present. I cannot tell your Lordships exactly when the review will be completed. It is more important that it is done properly than that it is done very quickly.”

It was noticeable that there was no string of Coalition-supporting Peers offering helpful or supportive supplementary questions.

Yesterday, The Times reported concerns about the safety of David Cameron:

“David Cameron is rejecting the advice of top security officials by insisting on walking around Whitehall, refusing police motorcycle escorts and demanding to be allowed to keep his BlackBerry smartphone.”

The risk has been denied by Downing Street who call the concerns “ridiculous”.

Now I can applaud the decision of public figures not to want a fuss every time they want to do something that everyone else takes for granted – like walking down the street.  I can understand the desire not to be seen to be having special privileges, such as having the traffic stopped so that their cars do not get stuck in traffic jams.  I would like to be in a world where senior politicians are readily approachable by the public they serve.

However, the attitude displayed by the Prime Minister is an irresponsible one.

There are threats to his security.  They are real and genuine.  They come not just from organised terrorist groups, but from lone free-lancers.  And then there are the fixated crazies ….

To have our Prime Minister assassinated or attacked in the street would never be in the national interest.  His safety therefore matters to every one of us, whether we agree with his policies or not.

And it is not just his safety that is at risk.

Those around him – accompanying him or protecting him – or simply passing by – are put at risk by a suicide bomber or an armed individual seeing an opportunity to get at him.

And consider the job of those protecting him, having to make a split-second decision if someone comes too close, perhaps when that person reaches into their pocket or under their clothing.  We don’t want innocent passers-by wrestled to the ground or worse still shot because of a misinterpreted gesture.  But equally, not reacting to that gesture could have appalling consequences.

Mr Cameron needs to reconsider.  To do so would not be a sign of weakness, nor a sign that the job has gone to his head, but it would be a sign that he is acquiring the maturity to be Prime Minister.

Associated Press has reported that a man has been detained at Karachi airport after electrical circuits and batteries were found in the soles of his tennis shoes.

The man concerned told investigators he bought the shoes from a market in Karachi and had no idea there were circuits inside the soles.  Ostensibly, the circuitry is for massaging the feet (sic), but batteries and circuits hidden in a shoe are reminiscent of Richard Reid, the 2001 shoe-bomber.  Pakistani police are still examining the shoes, pointing out that similar materials can be used in the construction of bombs.

Whatever the outcome of this particular investigation, it seems likely that the practice of requiring airline passengers to remove their shoes for scanning will continue and perhaps be intensified as a result of this incident.

The recent General Election means that I have only just spotted an item that was in the Daily Mail a week or so back.  This reports that:

“A routine traffic-stop in Switzerland has allegedly thwarted eco-terrorists from blowing up the site of the £55million nano-technology HQ of IBM in Europe.

The three members – two men and a woman – of the Italian terrorist group Il Silvestre were stopped just a few miles from their target with their explosive device primed and ready to go.

Italians Costantino Ragusa and Silvia Guerini, together with Italian-Swiss Luca Bernasconi, were arrested and jailed after a search of their vehicle revealed the bomb.

Guerini and Constantino – the 33-year-old leader of Il Silvestre – already have convictions for eco-terrorism offences and have served jail terms. 

The group describes itself as anarchist and is opposed to all forms of micro-technology as well as nuclear power and weapons.

Swiss police said today that their car was halted on the night of April 15 at Langnau en-route to the technology centre at Rueschlikon, near Zurich. 

The site is due to be opened next year and already has some of the most complex and advanced computer equipment in the world installed in it.

‘A large quantity of explosives was found,’ said a police spokesman.”

The report continues:

“The IBM facility that the Il Silvestre group was targeting is still under construction.  When finished, it will contain the most state-of-the-art facilities in Europe for nano-and-bio-technological research, with the probability of billions of pounds in profit for IBM.

Investigators are quizzing the suspects on whether the planned attack is part of a new co-ordinated wave of terror against such facilities on the continent.

Swiss media reported that the intended bombing was planned to coincide with a secret meeting of European anarchists on April 16 and 17 in the Swiss town of Winterthur.

Some newspapers speculated it was being planned to bring attention to the imprisonment of Il Silvestre member Marco Camenisch, currently in jail for the murder of a Swiss border guard.  Guerini and Constantino were in jail with him in 2006 and joined in a hunger strike.

Il Silvestre was spawned in the Tuscan countryside and is now considered to be one of the rising terror groups in Europe with a rigid cell structure, access to explosives and a membership that has no qualms about killing to achieve its goals.

It is considered as one of the successor groups to the lethal Red Brigades that scorched Italy in 70’s and 80’s.”

This is a timely reminder that – as I have repeatedly argued – the focus of counter-terrorist work must not just be on al Qaeda inspired groups.  There is a need to think outside the box and be aware of a much wider range of potential threats.

The Ipsos MORI analysis in The Observer gives some interesting analysis of public perceptions of the three Party Leaders.

Actually, interesting is not the word – it is devastating for Nick Clegg and pretty awful for David Cameron.

When asked which of the three Party leaders would be best in a crisis, only 12% rated Nick Clegg (33% favoured David Cameron and 40% Gordon Brown).

On who is the most capable, Clegg only scored 17% (with 33% and 36% for the Cameron and Brown respectively).

And on who best understands world problems, Clegg could only muster 14% and Cameron 23%, while Gordon Brown scored 45%.

So with bombs in New York, melt-down in Greece, climate change, a fragile economy, and troops in Afghanistan, the message is quie clear:

“It’s no time for a novice.”

The news that a nineteen year old member of the Aryan Strike Force has been convicted of Terrorism Act offenders is a useful reminder that the counter terrorist work of the Police is not just about al Qaeda inspired terrorism, but encompasses pursuing the activities of the far-right and other violent extremist groupings.

Nicky Davison, 19, was convicted of three separate charges of possessing records useful in committing or preparing acts of terrorism.  Along with his father, he was part of a group called the Aryan Strike Force, which plotted to overthrow the government.  His father, Ian Davison, has already admitted preparing for acts of terrorism and producing a chemical weapon, the deadly poison ricin, one of the world’s most dangerous substances.

Apparently, their plan was to fight against “the Zionist Occupied Government” in the belief that the state had been taken over by Jews.

I have just spoken at the Counter Terror Expo, an enormous exhibition and conference at Olympia.  I was standing in for Patrick Mercer who was apparently taken by surprise by the fact that there was going to be a General Election campaign going on when he agreed to speak.

My main theme was that we could envisage that we would be living in a much riskier society over the next twenty-five years.  The UK would be in a world:

“in which there will be greater political extremism and conflict and where radicalisers can flourish with a volatile and disaffected population in whose minds their ideas can take root.  This will be an environment in which international crime will be stronger and the restraints on it from the international community will be weaker.  There will be problems in building an international consensus as to what needs to be done as the current international certainties dissolve into a multi-polar future.

This will be a riskier society as state and city authority break down in many places and where international crime and terrorism can flourish and be nurtured in such lawless areas.

At the same time, society itself will become more vulnerable through its increasing reliance on ICT.”

I recognised the success of the Government’s CONTEST strategy with its four strands: Pursue, Prevent, Protect and Prepare.  I pointed out that:

“This has been accompanied by substantial investment.  By next year, there will be £3.5 billion spent on counter-terrorism.  The number of  police engaged in CONTEST has risen by 70% and the Security Service has doubled in size.

The strategy has been effective.  Since 2001, 200 people have been convicted of terrorist related offences and over a dozen significant plots have been disrupted  In addition, in the last four years, some 250 people have been excluded from the country on national security grounds or on the basis of their activities.”

But went on to point out that in the future more will need to be done:

“to ensure that the CONTEST strategy builds in expecting the unexpected.  We must be ready to look beyond al Qaeda, recognising the developing picture of dissident republicans in Northern Ireland, other political and regional struggles elsewhere in the world (certain in the knowledge that the diaspora from those struggles will be here in London) and new challenges such as those holding extreme ecological views who may have come to believe that mankind is so bad for the future of the planet that that future would be improved if mankind’s population was dramatically reduced.

We must be constantly vigilant about symbolic and iconic sites, economic targets, and all places of mass resort.  We must recognise the risks posed by terrorist groups or individuals seeking to have access to CRBRN weapons or materials and the implications of both our greater cyber-dependence and the opportunities that that provides to an increasingly cyber-aware opposition.

And at the same time we must continue to work with all our communities to build support for and trust in the responses that are being made.”

And as I said:

“Whoever is responsible for taking counter-terrorism forward after 6^th May is going to have their hands full.”

It is not a surprise, given the Manifesto launch yesterday and the Leaders’ Debate later this week, that the prime Minister is not able to attend president Obama’s summit co0nference in Washington on nuclear security.  However, given the Prime Minister’s skill at brokering deals at international summits, it is a real pity that he is not able to be there.

There are real concerns about nuclear materials falling into the hands of international terrorists and the UK Government is one of those with a real commitment to trying to make progress on this issue.

A few weeks ago I asked specifically about the summit:

Nuclear Disarmament

Question

Asked by Lord Harris of Haringey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government who will be representing the United Kingdom at the United Nations nuclear security summit in Washington in April; and what outcomes they will be seeking at that summit. [HL2151]

Baroness Crawley: The Prime Minister plans to attend the nuclear security summit in Washington DC in April.

The Government set out their aspirations for nuclear security in last summer’s Road to 2010 White Paper. Consistent with that vision, the UK will be seeking to: increase international awareness of the threat posed by nuclear terrorism; agree a robust set of guiding principles for nuclear security that will set the tone for developing international norms over the coming decades; secure commitment by participating nations to undertake a wide range of actions, domestically and in collaboration with other states, to improve the security of fissile material and sensitive information, and to prevent them from falling into the hands of malicious actors.

And I had also asked about some of the other initiatives that were being pursued by the UK:

Nuclear Disarmament

Questions

Asked by Lord Harris of Haringey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress is being made in establishing the United Kingdom’s nuclear centre of excellence. [HL2153]

1 Mar 2010 : Column WA328

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): The Road to 2010 White Paper (Cm7675) set out the Government’s commitment to establish a nuclear centre of excellence. Since publication of the White Paper the National Nuclear Centre of Excellence Steering Group, chaired by the Government’s chief scientific adviser, has overseen development of the centre, including the appointment of an interim director and agreement on the business model to be adopted. The project has strong support from key government, industry and academic stakeholders including the Technology Strategy Board, the National Nuclear Laboratory, the Nuclear Industries Association, UK research councils and universities. There has also been international interest in the centre of excellence.

Asked by Lord Harris of Haringey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what other countries support the Global Threat Reduction Programme; and what are its achievements so far. [HL2154]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead): The Global Threat Reduction Programme delivers the UK contribution to the Global Partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. The Global Partnership was established at the G8 summit in June 2002. The contributions made by other states are set out in the G8 Global Partnership Working Group 2009 annual report, annex A consolidated data sheets (http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/ GPWG-Report-2009-AnnexA-Consolidated-Data-Sheets,2.pdf)

Asked by Lord Harris of Haringey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many countries have now ratified the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material; and what changes are being implemented in the United Kingdom following ratification. [HL2155]

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Thirty-four countries have ratified the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM).