ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

With homeland security rising up the agenda, is it time to reinstate Patrick Mercer?

David Davis has written a very good article for this morning's Times on the "blunders" that may have contributed to 7/7.  We now know, for example, that MI5 had information about Mohammad Sidique Khan, the ringleader of the 7/7 attacks, but did not follow up on that information.  The ringleader was certainly not a 'clean skin' as had been first suggested.  David Davis wonders if MI5 failed operationally in its failure to keep tabs on Khan and his associates or whether there are overriding issues of adequate resourcing and use of resources.  The Shadow Home Secretary believes that it's time for "an independent inquiry into the attacks of July 7 and 21, and their implications for our security strategy":

"John Reid has refused to allow a “public inquiry”. We do not want a public inquiry, we want an independent inquiry, which, far from being a distraction, will be an essential tool in improving our security services. At a time when the head of MI5 has publicly cautioned that we face an unprecedented threat from 30 terrorist plots, 200 terrorist groups and 1,600 suspects, the British public – especially the bereaved and the survivors of 7/7 – deserve no less."

David Davis asks lots of good questions.  One question for him in return: "Why hasn't Patrick Mercer been replaced as Shadow Homeland Security Minister?"  It's been nearly two months since his forced resignation and keeping such an important position unfilled does not send out the right message.  John Reid has already sought to exploit the situation.  At the end of last week David Cameron suggested that there could be room in a Conservative Government for Mr Mercer.  Perhaps he could return to the frontbenches and to his old job?  Few are better equipped to fill it.  A short three month suspension is also probably a proportionate response to what were his politically insensitive - but not racist - remarks.

The civil libertarian Tories

In another sign of the extent to which the Conservative Party has become the party of civil libertarianism a Communicate Research poll for The Independent finds that Labour MPs are much more likely to support police calls for an increase in the maximum time that suspected terrorists can be detained.

It is one of the last remaining issues - including ID cards - on which Labour appears closer to the public mood.

David Cameron has called Labour's 'security measures' "ineffective authoritarianism".  He has promised a border police force with the money that will be saved by scrapping ID cards.

In a recent article for The Sunday Telegraph, Shadow Home Secretary David Davis emphasised greater investment in intelligence, the use of intercept evidence and improved "resilience" to inevitable terrorist attacks.

Related link: The Tories' Molotov-Ribbentrop pact against anti-terror measures (3 November 2005)

Davis: We must fight terror the American way

David Davis has just been on a trip to America to inspect their homeland security systems and writes about what he has learnt for today's Sunday Telegraph.

Alongside opposition to John Reid's "ill-considered" scheme to break up the Home Office, he calls for anti-terror efforts to be more coordinated.  [According to John Rentoul in today's Independent on Sunday, Gordon Brown has squashed Reid's plans "for fear that terrorists might strike in the middle of a reorganisation"].  Mr Davis repeats the Tory demand for a Cabinet-rank Security Minister and notes that "US counter-terrorism chiefs hold conference calls three times a day, seven days a week, to ensure "situational awareness" of threats."

He then offers three main learning points:

• Invest in intelligence: "If the threat is as serious as MI5 has warned, Labour's chokehold on security spending is inexcusable. The FBI has 30,000 personnel gathering intelligence and the National Counter-Terrorism Center has more than 400 analysing it."
• Allow intercept evidence: "John Reid has refused to introduce intercept evidence to prosecute terrorists, saying it is "not a silver bullet". Yet the FBI and Department of Justice use intercept evidence in nearly all counter-terrorism and organised crime cases. It is often the critical evidence that secures a conviction. It can persuade a defendant to plead guilty, cooperate with police and give evidence against terrorist accomplices. It is the US prosecutor's legal weapon of choice, with the most reliable record for hitting the target. Yet Britain remains one of the few countries in the world not using intercept evidence."
• Improve "resilience" to inevitable attacks: "The US has put enormous energy into strengthening its "resilience" to attack, protecting communications systems, chemical plants and transport infrastructure. I examined the poison gas detection system at Grand Central station in New York. Similar systems are in place on US underground networks. Back in the UK, we are way behind. We do not even have a comprehensive underground-to-surface communications system, to allow the emergency services to communicate in the event of an attack on the Tube."

Related link: Patrick Mercer MP wrote for YourPlatform about Conservative security policy last November.

Tory MP: London vulnerable to Madrid-style commuter attack

New London MP Bob Neill "has said the British Transport Police would have "no hope" in preventing a Madrid-style terror attack on commuter trains" (ePolitix.com).  Mr Neill accuses the Government of complacency in defending London - echoing criticisms previously made by Tory homeland security spokesman Patrick Mercer.

Mr Neill:

"I know it is not easy with a mass transit system and you can never have absolute security but I do think we need to be looking at more.  The [London] Assembly had a report, drafted by one of my colleagues, Richard Barnes, which pointed out some specifics on how we could up the ante on that. With technology we could do more... Personally I favour an integration between the British Transport Police and the Met because I think that would make it easier for the operation to be more flexible.  We are going to have to be prepared to put some more resources into that.

From my constituency point of view it is not just the Tube, you also have to look at the over-land commuter network because, as you will remember in Madrid, it was exactly that, the sort of trains that come in from constituencies like mine that were the targets.  British Transport Police has only got 300 people to cover the whole of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire and South London so they have no hope preventing anything like that.  Now we have more gated stations I think it is more possible to have some sort of discreet, light-touch scanning at least with the new technology."

David Cameron expected to embrace call for US-style National Security Council

Bruce Anderson gives a warm welcome to today's interim report from the Conservative Party's study group on security.  The Independent's Mr Anderson sees Dame Pauline Neville-Jones' report as a bold attempt to consider Britain's foreign, defence and security policies within the same context and, in future, to see that policy progressed under the direction of a new US-style Security Council, to be chaired by the Prime Minister.  Mr Cameron should not be surprised to find Dame Pauline, a former Whitehall mandarin, recommending a new Whitehall structure to deal with a problem.

To ConservativeHome, the rest of the report also appears to be largely procedural and underwhelming.   The Telegraph notes that it "calls for a fresh drive to build a more stable Middle East by working in partnership with countries in the region."  Wow!  It continues (according to the FT): "We should recognise that we will find it difficult to serve our interests, or those of America, if we are regarded as their mute partner in every foreign undertaking."  It also makes now familar criticisms of the Iraq war and reaffirms the existing Tory policy of a Cabinet-level minister for homeland security.   The Tories have a homeland security spokesman - Patrick Mercer - although, strangely, he sits outside of the shadow cabinet.

There may be more to come at this lunchtime's announcement of the report's main findings but the headline recommendations appear to have been trailed already.  ConservativeHome's top three hopes for future recommendations are: (1) A clear call for much greater resourcing of Britain's over-stretched armed forces; (2) Acceleration of moves towards missile defence; and (3) A policy of zero tolerance towards domestic Muslim extremism including an end to public funding of any groups with Islamist connections and close supervision of foreign funding of UK mosques.

***
In yesterday's Sunday Times Labour's Alan Milburn argued that Labour enjoyed the upper hand on issues of national security: "Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Reid have given Labour the upper hand on issues of national security: identity cards, Trident missiles, Asbos and curfews may smack of the big clunking fist but these policies tend to enjoy popular support. By opposing ID cards and anti-terrorist laws, the Conservatives’ purported aim is for a less authoritarian position. Cameron believes the only way back for his Tories is to hug a hoodie and praise a Polly; so blame is out, love is in. His gamble is that while traditional supporters may find the journey uncomfortable, they will not seek another destination and that by changing track he can get enough disaffected and floating voters to join his centre-bound cavalcade."

3.30pm: Full paper from Dame Pauline's group (pdf)

Year2(1): Focus more on crime and security

Following on from last week's review of the peaks, troughs, modernising and reassurance moments of David Cameron's first year, ConservativeHome spends today proposing twelve actions that will help Project Cameron to make the best of its second year and build upon the modest 3% Tory lead in ConservativeHome's poll of polls.

Recommendation 1: The Conservative Party has been an imbalanced project for far too long.  At the last General Election Michael Howard focused far too much on immigration and reinforced a negative image of the Conservative Party.  In his first year as Tory leader David Cameron has placed a heavy emphasis on very different themes - notably the environment and increasing the number of female candidates.  The danger is that the 'new' Conservative Party looks as imbalanced as the 'old' Conservative Party.  Every 'Waitrose voter' gained is erased by the 'Bromley voter' who stays at home.  The south and ABs warm to Cameron as the north and C2s cool.  ConservativeHome welcomes David Cameron's greener, gentler conservatism but the 'politics of and' argues that we must also talk about crime and tax and immigration.  There have been welcome signs in recent days that David Cameron is rebalancing the Tory message and is offering some grittier positioning.  More than anything else the party must work on its homeland security credentials.  Homeland security is the coming issue.  It is almost inevitable that Britain will be struck again and again in future years by acts of terrorism.  The Conservative Party must not be weaker than Labour on this issue.  Prosperity and security, as John Howard understands, is the fundamental 'politics of and'.

Saudi Arabia's funding of Islamism

I recently reported on an excellent speech by Paul Goodman MP which drew attention to the danger of Islamism (as distinct from Islam) within Britain.  In the Commons yesterday, Michael Gove MP highlighted the Chancellor's feeble efforts to seize the assets of those people and organisations linked to extremism.  His short speech went on to highlight the role of Saudi money in financing extremism within Britain.  I publish two key quotes below but you can read the full speech from here:

"There are some 1,600 mosques in Britain, most of them exemplary houses of instruction that provide spiritual nourishment to our fellow citizens, and that teach them in a tradition that all of us would think admirable. However, there are mosques—some with direct relationships with Saudi Arabia—that do not cleave to the moderate mainstream path taken by the majority of British Muslims. I shall mention two of them. One subject of concern is the East London mosque, which is one of the largest in Britain. Its president, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari, is the chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain, but the speaker invited to open the mosque, Sheikh al-Sudais, had preached sermons in his native Saudi Arabia in which he described Jewish people as pigs and monkeys. He has called Hindus idol-worshippers to whom it would be wrong to speak sweetly. That is an example of Saudi influence raising profound concerns.

An even more profound concern arises in connection with the plans, in east London, for the erection of the largest mosque—indeed, the largest house of worship—in the country. It is intended to accommodate between 40,000 and 70,000 worshippers, and it is estimated that it will cost between £100 million and £300 million. The mosque, which is being built by an organisation called Tablighi Jamaat, raises profound concerns, not least because that organisation has been described by French intelligence as an “antechamber of fundamentalism”. Two of the 7/7 bombers had direct links with the Tablighi Jamaat mosque in Dewsbury. Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber, had links with the organisation, as did John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban. How can an organisation that, according to the Charity Commission, records an income of just £500,000 a year, afford to build a mosque that will cost anything between £100 million and £300 million?"

Security first, politics second

Read David Cameron's full speech (4200 words) here.

"We must not allow the security of this country to become a political football – either between the parties or within the parties. That does not mean avoiding debate or  promoting fake consensus.  But it does mean avoiding the temptation to use national security as a political positioning exercise – an attempt to portray one side as being “tougher” than the other… whether it’s one side in a general election, or one side in a leadership election.  A strong and steady approach puts security first, politics second.  Putting politics before security leads to an approach that is hasty and hysterical - and that can never be in the national interest."

Deputy Editor

Homeland security depends upon victory in Iraq

David Cameron has written for this morning's Sunday Times, setting out his homeland security agenda:

• The Conservative leader promises a cabinet minister dedicated to homeland security but without a US-style department because, he writes, "that would cause far too much upheaval."
• There'll also be a dedicated border police "to patrol every port and airport and exercise tight control over entry to, and exit from, Britain".
• He repeats his pledge to scrap Labour's £20bn ID card scheme and to invest the money in "security, surveillance and Special Branch."
• "It is time to replace the Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights that will enable ministers to act within the law to protect our society."
• "Telephone intercept evidence should be made available to the courts."
• Mr Cameron's final point concerns the need to "embrace genuinely moderate Muslims, the majority who love Britain and want to live in peace, while confronting the fundamentalists."  Mr Cameron shares the concern of Michael Gove MP and Martin Bright that the Government has radicalised Muslim opinion within Britain by dealing with their most extreme representatives.

In an interview in the same newspaper Gordon Brown rejects the idea of a cabinet minister for homeland security:

“Every minister and every agency of government must take responsibility for security — each of them must play their part.  But, ultimately, because the fight against terrorism must be fought both at home and abroad, it is the prime minister who must take the lead, as Tony Blair has done. If you are prime minister, you cannot devolve responsibility for protecting the nation. It must always be your first priority.”

Mr Brown suggests that the Conservative Party does not understand “the scale of the threat we face” and reiterates his support for ID cards:

“You can’t protect your borders or conduct effective surveillance if you don’t have a proper system of identity management.”

The Chancellor, in a move certain to delight The Sun, also backed Met Chief Sir Ian Blair's latest intervention in support of a much longer detention period for suspected terrorists:

“Given the scale of the threat we face, we must give the security service and the police not just the resources they need, but the powers they need, to gather securely the evidence and use that evidence to gain convictions.”

John Prescott protests too much

Our esteemed Deputy PM may have been kept out of sight during last Thursday's terror scare but he wasted no time  attacking yesterday's statement on homeland security from David Cameron.  Mr Cameron's intervention was "almost beyond belief" said Mr Prescott.  Meanwhile Defence Secretary Des Browne has accused the Tory leader of opportunism.  But, as today's Sun Says, "David Cameron is entitled to ask awkward questions about the Government’s handling of the terror crisis."  For many years Labour did nothing about the growth of Muslim extremism in Britain.  In fact, the 'Muslim leaders' that Labour have chosen to dialogue with - as Martin Bright and Michael Gove have documented - have often been the more extreme representatives of Muslim opinion.  Labour is repeating the same mistakes that it made in the Northern Ireland peace process - flattering Sinn Fein at the expense of a healthy relationship with moderate Republican opinion in the SDLP.

Labour talks about a consensus on counter terrorism but that is a consensus they want to hide their failures behind.  A consensus at Westminster normally ends up as a conspiracy against the public and David Cameron was right to say what he did yesterday.  Labour are overreacting because they have long hoped that a reputation for protecting the public was one of their electoral trump cards.  They don't like the fact that yesterday's speech by the Tory leader showed they are going to face some stiff competition for being Britain's principal party of homeland security.

A leader in today's Telegraph criticises the alleged hastiness of David Cameron's speech and accuses him of having "stumbled" into "a wholly predictable row by criticising the way the Government is combating terrorism".  The Telegraph's criticisms are unfair.  Most of what David Cameron said yesterday - on a borders police force, for example, and a minister for homeland security - are settled Tory policy.  Yesterday, in the aftermath of last week's plot, was a very good time for Mr Cameron to remind voters of those and other Tory policies.