My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, I should like to update the House on the measures that we are taking to enhance our security and our protection against terrorism. Yesterday, at a regular meeting of our National Security Committee, Ministers and I received the latest intelligence and information from the chiefs of our security and intelligence agencies, the head of the UK Border Agency, the country’s senior counterterrorism officials and police officers, and the Chief of the Defence Staff. Also yesterday I spoke to President Obama about our security measures.

The failed attack over Detroit on Christmas Day signalled the first operation mounted outside Arabia by al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, the Yemen-based organisation with close links to the al-Qaeda core in Pakistan. We know that a number of terrorist cells are actively trying to attack Britain and other countries. Earlier this month, the Home Secretary and the Transport Secretary made Statements to Parliament setting out the urgent steps that we are taking to enhance aviation security, including new regulations for transit passengers. Today, following the advice that the Government have received, I want to announce further measures to strengthen the protection of our borders, maximise aviation security, and enhance intelligence co-ordination at home and abroad.

Earlier today, I paid tribute to those members of our Armed Forces who most recently gave their lives in the service of the security of our country in Afghanistan. The action that we are taking to counter terrorism at its source in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region and elsewhere is a central part of our wider counterterrorist strategy. All our actions, which we will update regularly, are founded on what is and must be the first and most important duty of government: the protection and security of the British people.

Although the UK’s borders are already among the strongest in the world, I now want to set out how we will further strengthen our protection against would-be terrorists: first, by extending our Home Office watch list; and secondly, in partnership with security agencies abroad, by improving the sharing of information on individuals of concern. I can announce today that, as well as extending our watch list, we intend for the first time to use it as the basis for two new lists: first, a no-fly list; and secondly, a larger list of those who should be subject to special measures, including enhanced screening prior to boarding flights bound for the UK. We will use the new technology that we have introduced and our partnerships with police and agencies in other countries to stop those who pose the greatest risk from travelling to this country. Over the coming months we will go further in taking action against people before they even board a plane to the UK.

Our e-Borders scheme is a vital component of our strategy to strengthen and modernise the UK’s border controls. It has already achieved significant success, enabling nearly 5,000 arrests for crimes that include murder, rape and assault. As a result of the £1.2 billion investment that we are making, we will by the end of this year be able to check all passengers travelling from other countries to all major airports and ports in the UK, whether they are in transit or the UK is their final destination, by checking against the watch list 24 hours prior to travel and then taking appropriate action. The e-Borders system will give us a better picture than ever of people coming into and out of our country.

Today my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is meeting his European counterparts to push for swift agreement at EU level on the ability to collect and process data on passenger records, including on travel within the EU, and to enforce the European Commission’s recent approval of the transmission of advance passenger information to our e-Borders system by carriers based in other member states.

As the Detroit bomber highlighted, we also need—and are sponsoring—research on the most sophisticated devices, capable of identifying potential explosives anywhere on the body. As President Obama and I discussed, greater security in our airports, with the new body scanners introduced from next week, an increase in explosive trace testing and the use of dogs, must be matched by demanding greater guarantees about security in those international airports from which there are flights into our country. I can today inform the House that we have agreed with Yemenia Airways, pending enhanced security, that it suspends its direct flights to the UK from Yemen with immediate effect. We are working closely with the Yemeni Government to agree what security measures need to be put in place before flights are resumed. Aviation security officials are at present looking at this. I hope that flights can be resumed soon, but the security of our citizens must be our priority.

We will also work with our partners in the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the EU and the G8 to promote enhancements to the international aviation security regime, including stronger security arrangements in airports and greater sharing of information. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be discussing initial proposals with European and US counterparts this week. We will also offer increased assistance to countries whose weaknesses in aviation security may present a wider threat to the international community, including to the UK.

It is because we fully recognise the global nature of the terrorist threat that we face today that our response must also be truly global. Plots against the UK and our interests originate in various parts of the globe. Some of the intelligence that we need in order to protect our people against attacks will be here in Britain; some will be held by our international partners and passed to us, just as we help them with our information about the threats that they face; and some information will come from the most unstable parts of the world. So, in tackling these threats to life and our way of life, our security services—to whom I pay tribute—need to be able seamlessly to track and disrupt terrorist activity and movements, whether within the UK or beyond. This requires ever closer working between our agencies themselves, and with our international partners.

I can announce that, as part of the work, I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to lead on intelligence co-ordination. Our three intelligence agencies have already begun to set up joint investigating and targeting teams to address potential threats upstream, long before the individuals concerned might reach our shores, ensuring that at all times we continue to deliver improvements in the way we collect, share and use intelligence, and building on previous reforms, including the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre set up in 2003, the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism and the National Security Secretariat in 2007.

In addition to all those measures to protect British lives at home and in the air, we are tackling the problem of global international terrorism at its source. I have said before that Yemen is both an incubator and a potential safe haven for terrorism, and, along with Somalia, is the most significant after the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas. We and our allies are clear that the crucible of terrorism on the Afghan-Pakistan border remains the No. 1 security threat to the West. But at the same time we must recognise that al-Qaeda’s affiliates and allies, pushed out of Afghanistan and under increasing pressure in Pakistan, are seeking to exploit other areas with weak governance, such as parts of Yemen, Somalia and the Sahel.

In Yemen, we have been at the forefront of the international effort for some time, assisting the Government through intelligence support and through support for their coastguard and for the training of counterterror personnel. We are also helping to tackle some of the root causes of terrorism by supporting political, economic and social reform. By next year, our commitments will total some £100 million, making the UK one of the leading donors. We are also increasing our capacity-building in Somalia, working with the transitional Government and the African Union.

As with all aspects of the fight against terrorism, this new threat can be met only through enhanced co-operation, so we will now work more closely with allies in the region to pool efforts, resources and expertise. Next week, here in London, alongside our conference on Afghanistan, we will be hosting a special meeting to strengthen international support for Yemen in its efforts against al-Qaeda, to help the Government of Yemen advance their internal reforms and to increase capacity-building and development assistance in a way that directly addresses poverty and grievances which can fuel insecurity and extremism.

Since 2001, we have reformed domestic defences against the terrorist threat, trebled our domestic security budget, doubled the staff in our security services and reformed our security structures to bring greater co-ordination across government. We have responded to the changing nature of the threat by bringing in new powers and new terrorism-related offences. Nearly 230 people have been convicted of terrorist or terrorist-related offences since 2001. Today’s announcements demonstrate that we will continue to be vigilant, adapting our response to changing terrorist techniques”.

I commend this Statement to the House.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made earlier by the Prime Minister. Finding the right balance between ancient liberties and security is a delicate matter and something that I think this House has been rather better at than another place. If I may say so, it has certainly been better than the Government, whose security policy has been consistently reactive, and all too often over-reactive. One only has to think of the example of 42-day detention without trial. Thank goodness that old dog has not been let loose again. I hope the noble Baroness will confirm that she sees no need for it.

I said that the Government had too often been reactive and had played catch-up. That is surely the case in respect of militant radicalisation of Muslim youth. For too long the Prime Minister dithered about proscribing Islam4UK, which we on this side repeatedly asked to be banned. Now he has acted. Will the Government now ban Hizb ut-Tahrir? Does the noble Baroness share my concern that the United Kingdom is now widely seen by other countries as a base for radicalisation?

University freedom is vital, but can the noble Baroness tell the House what appraisal the Government have made of radical activity on FE campuses? Could not more be done to help those in Muslim communities combating those threatening a British way of life that most British Muslims hold dear? Could we not ensure that every woman and child in immigrant families is fully educated in the British language and our way of life? Must we not be rigorous in shutting out from any kind of taxpayer funding bodies that do not accept the pluralism of our way of life and ways of faith as a permanent British reality?

The Government intend to react to the Detroit bomber by imposing full-body scans at all airports. We support all action that is necessary and proportionate; we accept the security advice. However, will the noble Baroness tell the House four things: the timescale for this, the cost, the number of ports and airports involved, and the anticipated impact on travel times? How will this be required of countries of provenance? Is not the brutal reality that the terrorist target is as much the plane flying towards the UK or the US as that flying out?

The Statement seemed to say that by December, with 24 hours’ notice, we will be able to prevent anyone boarding a flight to the UK from anywhere in the world. Is that what was meant? If not, precisely what was meant? This might be an ideal, but how will it be imposed? For example, has every EU country signed up to full-body scanning, or laborious body searches, at every international airport? If so, on what timetable?

Mass murder is possible—as seen tragically in Madrid and here on 7/7—on other modes of transport, or indeed on none. Is not the abiding overall need not for general measures, helpful though they may be, but for targeted measures, proper profiling and layered security? Questioning mothers taking pictures of their children in Whitehall, holding the DNA of innocent people or detaining, for example, a suspicious-looking character like the noble Lord, Lord West—as I read in the Daily Mail the other day—makes a mockery of targeted security policy and undermines consent. Therefore I welcome the targeted measures in the Statement: for example, the announcement of the extension of the Home Office watch list. I also particularly welcome the action on a no-fly list. This is something that my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones has been advocating for some time, and for which she asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he made his Statement last week. I and my noble friend welcome the fact that this has been taken up, however belatedly. Will the noble Baroness also tell the House what is being done, in the light of this episode, to improve targeting of potential terrorists, for example by enhancing the training of security staff at airports to identify risk factors?

I also welcome the tentative moves towards improved co-ordination within government. This has long been necessary. However, will the noble Baroness go further and take up the comprehensive proposals for a national security strategy—including on this particular point of intelligence co-ordination—set out in the outstanding report by my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones, published last week? Rather than a Cabinet committee, do we not need a proper national security council, with a national security adviser, at the heart of government, which can address these issues in the round?

On Yemen, too, we are at last seeing concrete action. Will the noble Baroness assure the House that it does not include deployment of troops or military advisers? As well as Yemen, the Statement picked out Somalia and the Sahel. Will the noble Baroness tell the House which Sahel nations she sees as particular threats, and what action is being taken there?

Ever since we had regime change in London and Washington and the phrase “war on terror” was banned, there has been an occasional whiff of doubt beyond these shores about our resolve to confront and crush terrorism. No one who thinks for a moment of the courage and sacrifice of our forces in Afghanistan could doubt our national resolve. We will never forget our gratitude to them. However, this will be a long and sometimes dark road. The Government must give convincing leadership on the threat that we face at home. I assure the noble Baroness that, so long as that resolve endures and sacrifices are needed, the Government will have our support—and I am sure that another party in government will receive no less support from her.

My Lords, I can probably shorten my intervention by not following the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in saying which ideas we thought of first or which we would do better. However, I will follow on from his final comment. It is very important in this area that we show as much cross-party resolve as possible in facing these threats. We support the central theme of the Statement that the first priority is the protection and security of the British people.

There are some points on which I should like clarification. Are the Government still pondering the question of intercept evidence in this area or do they now believe that it is not possible within our legal system? Profiling is a very delicate area because, to put it bluntly, the kind of people whom we are looking for will come up in certain profiles, which will then arouse questions of racialism or of picking out particular nationalities. It is very difficult to know how to square that circle in terms of effective profiling. On the question of body scanners, again, will we run into trouble with certain individuals claiming that it is against religious or cultural taboos to allow themselves to be submitted to such scanners? Also, how much confidence do the Government now have in control orders in these areas?

Following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I think that there is now enough evidence, real and circumstantial, to raise concerns about radicalisation in our universities and other institutions of further education. How much consultation is now taking place with the university authorities so that intellectual freedom, which is important in our universities, is matched with the reality of such radicalisation? Are we in contact with the university authorities and are they being co-operative?

The Statement referred to 2001, so there have been about nine years of various developments in these policies, yet we are still talking about greater sharing of information. Even more worrying, the Cabinet Secretary now has to look at intelligence co-ordination between our three intelligence agencies. I should have thought that, if evidence arose of non-co-operation on information between our intelligence agencies, that should be a sackable offence, if not a prosecutable one. There should be no hoarding of information by the agencies if they are to be effective.

It is welcome that we are making support available to Yemen but, again, we must learn some of the lessons of history. This is an extremely complex society and in the past both we and the United States have gone into such societies, created problems and alienated local communities. It is important that we are very well informed about whom we are supporting and with what objectives.

Finally, during Questions we heard the extraordinary statement that the FCO is cutting activity in counterterrorism and radicalisation. If we have a Statement from the Prime Minister about how we are making much more effort in these areas and then a statement from the Foreign Office Minister saying that Treasury-imposed cuts are cutting activity in the very areas that the Prime Minister’s Statement is about, is that not evidence that there is a hole in the bucket?

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their general welcome for the Statement that I repeated. They are both right that these issues are of such extreme importance to our country that it is vital that we work on a cross-party basis for the security of our nation and people. Of course I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that we have to maintain the balance between rights of the individual and the need to protect society as a whole. That is what this Statement is about and what we as a Government have been doing over the past 12 years.

On the radicalisation of Muslim youth, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, contended that we have somehow been dithering about the proscription of certain organisations. We were not dithering about the proscription of an organisation a couple of weeks ago. We have to ensure all the time that the proper criteria are met. The proper criteria were met at that time and we proscribed the organisation. The organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir does not meet the criteria for proscription so it has not yet been proscribed. Should it do so, it will be proscribed.

Both noble Lords spoke of the importance of university and FE campuses. There is no evidence that universities are hotbeds of radicalisation and, as the noble Lord said, it is very important that the values of openness, intellectual scrutiny, freedom of debate and tolerance promoted in higher education are allowed to flourish. That is a good way of challenging extremism. However, we know and recognise that a small minority of people who support violent extremism have sought to influence and recruit young people through targeting universities. We are therefore working with universities, and have been doing so for some time, but there is much more to be done. I assure noble Lords that we have a good relationship with vice-chancellors and those in charge of FE establishments to ensure that proper measures are taken. We will continue to work on that issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the importance of people who want to live in this country speaking English—man, woman and child. That is precisely why spoken English is now an important part of our citizenship process.

I turn to airline security measures. The first body scanners will be in service at Heathrow within a few weeks. Because Heathrow is our major hub airport, it is important that we work on it first. Privacy concerns were raised, which we understand. That is why it is vital that staff are properly trained and managed. The Department for Transport is drawing up a code of practice to ensure that privacy and legal concerns are taken into account. We are also working with our European counterparts on these issues.

In relation to passenger profiling, we are working with BAA, which has started to train airport security staff in behaviour analysis techniques to help them to spot passengers acting unusually and to target them for additional search. That is not really profiling but training people to spot how people behave. It looks a promising way forward, but it is not yet a proven technique for counterterrorism operations.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rightly pointed out that there is a terrorism threat from incoming planes. More than 5,000 flights a week come into our country, which makes it vital for us to work with other countries. That is what we do, by sending people from the Department for Transport to work with officials on the ground. Furthermore, our e-Borders programme is very effective. By the end of this year, it aims to cover 95 per cent of passenger and crew movements into and out of the UK. That is already making a profound difference. To date, e-Borders has checked 142 million passengers and led to around 5,000 arrests. That is a splendid move forward and I am pleased that the noble Lord is in agreement with the extension of the watch lists and the no-fly lists.

It is wrong to say that nations are a threat, but al-Qaeda in the Maghreb is present across the region of the southern Sahel and it does not respect borders. Sadly, it is present throughout the region, as I said.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke of the policy introduced at the beginning of this week by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones. Many of the initiatives proposed by the Official Opposition are built on ideas that are already in place. Noble Lords speak of the need for a national security council, but we already have NCIS. Yes, it is a Cabinet committee and not a council—council, committee, whatever—but it is a very effective way of bringing together all the people involved in security. We have a national security strategy and the National Security Secretariat, so we are already acting on many of the issues raised by the noble Baroness earlier in the week.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke of the need for co-operation between agencies and expressed concern and amazement that the Cabinet Secretary was now involved in that. We are confident that there is already excellent operational co-operation between our intelligence agencies. The Cabinet Secretary’s review is an exercise to ensure that we are doing as much as possible and that national security is kept under careful and constant review in the light of recent events.

On control orders, we were disappointed by the judgment handed down earlier in the week and will be appealing in the strongest possible terms. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised the issue of intercept evidence, but as noble Lords will already know the committee of the privy counsellors agreed that the Chilcot test had not been met and is looking at other ways forward.

The noble Lord, understandably and rightly, spoke of the seeming disparity between the Statement and the Answer to a Question posed earlier today about counterterrorism expenditure in Pakistan. No budget can be exempt from scrutiny. Our counterterrorism work in Pakistan is of the utmost importance and includes building the capacity of Pakistani counterterrorism capabilities and giving wider support to the Government of Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts. This work is always under review. Some projects have not met the required threshold following the FCO’s reduced budget because of exchange rate charges. However, I can assure noble Lords that we will continue to work in that area.

Finally, this Government, like all Governments, will continue to take no chances when it comes to the protection of the UK. I know that all of us in this Chamber agree that that is the right way forward.

My Lords, perhaps I may press my noble friend a little further on that last point, which was also the final point that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised, because it goes to the heart of the issue. The Statement is unequivocal on what the Prime Minister says is the first and most important duty of the Government—the protection and security of the British people. That is an unequivocal statement. I and, I am sure, many others in the House heard my noble friend Lady Kinnock in terms, I fear, of some concern answering the Question earlier this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. She said quite clearly that the counterterrorism budget had been cut—not that specific bits had been taken out and other bits put in, but that the counterterrorism budget itself in the Foreign Office as it pertains to Pakistan had been cut. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made the point that perhaps there should therefore be more support from the Treasury to make up the shortfall of £100 million as a result of the changes in the exchange rate. Will my noble friend take this point back, because, frankly, the Statement and what my noble friend Lady Kinnock said do not add up to a coherent point of view? Some of us think that there should be ring-fencing of the counterterrorism budget. We can ring-fence other budgets. Surely the budget that affects the protection and security of the British people should be the first to be ring-fenced, not an afterthought.

My Lords, I well understand the concern expressed by my noble friend and other noble Lords and I confess to my surprise earlier also. As I understand it, the counterterrorism expenditure, or funding, in the Home Office is ring-fenced. If it can be ring-fenced in one department, perhaps it could be ring-fenced in another. I really do not know. I cannot make a commitment on behalf of the Government, but I will certainly take that point back and take back the fact that counterterrorism is clearly a priority for the Government. We understand that the Treasury is under enormous pressure at the moment, but perhaps it could do something vis-à-vis the exchange rate.

My Lords, in broadly welcoming the important Statement that has been made today, in relation to the use of the e-Borders system to check against the enhanced watch list, may I ask the noble Baroness to assure the House that it will be possible to use the e-Borders system effectively where passengers book their tickets less than 24 hours before travel? Will the Government also take steps to ensure that it is no longer possible to purchase travel tickets to and from this country with cash shortly before travel? Finally, will the noble Baroness assure the House that the reference in the Statement to major airports covers every air and sea port to and from which what one might call scheduled travel is possible?

My Lords, at the moment the limit is 24 hours. I will come back to the noble Lord on whether that can be extended. It takes some time to exchange information, but I will come back to him. It seems a sensible way forward not to be able to purchase tickets with cash. Again, I will have to come back to the noble Lord.

Some people only have cash.

The noble Lord opposite rightly says that some people only have cash and not credit cards. These things have to be looked at in a balanced way, but that has to be considered. On the ports and airports that will be covered, our target for the end of next year is 95 per cent of all movements into and out of the UK. The additional 5 per cent represents a very small number of non-commercial flights and some maritime routes; the vast majority will be covered.

Can the Leader of the House confirm that since 9/11 the principle guiding the exchange of intelligence has been the need to share, not the need to know? I am surprised by the implication in the Statement that that is not happening at a very advanced level. I am two-and-a-half years out of date, but the exchange of intelligence between the various intelligence agencies, the police in the UK and the British Government was at a level I had never seen before and was extremely detailed. Nothing was horded or hidden from the people in the UK machinery who needed to have that information.

However, I shall add one caveat. Not all that information can be shared with everybody in the world. We are dealing with other countries that have different legal standards, different human rights standards and different abilities to protect that information and its source. Therefore, while it will always be the case that we will wish to communicate to other nations information on threats to the lives of their citizens, it has to be done with great care if we are not to jeopardise the sources of intelligence and damage our own counterterrorism effort. I wish this House not to believe that the exchange of intelligence can happen in a routine whirlpool around anybody in the world with whom we are talking. That is too dangerous. I believe that the Leader of the House will confirm that.

I completely agree with everything that the noble Baroness said. I reassure her that nothing has changed since she held her position. The principle is still the need to share, not the need to know, and it is happening at a very advanced level.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that at a time when, as the Prime Minister constantly reminds us, we are asking our military personnel to lay down their lives so that terrorism is kept off the streets of Britain, it would be inexcusable if any weapon at home against terrorism were not to be fully used? Does she further agree that profiling is a most important weapon against terrorism and that it has many different aspects and techniques? The answer must be to make the fullest use of it, but not to talk about it.

Now there is a conundrum, my Lords. It depends on how one defines profiling. The sort of thing that I was talking about earlier—looking at how people behave—might be called profiling by some people. It is one of a number of techniques. As the noble Lord said, especially at a time when we are asking people to lay down their lives for us, but at any time when we are under threat, any Government have to look at all the tools available to them, if I may put it like that, and use whatever is necessary to secure the safety of the people of this country.

Can the noble Baroness give us fuller information about the basis on which the no-fly list will be compiled? Will it include people with convictions and, possibly, people who are merely under suspicion? Will there be an appeal procedure against listing? I say that because mistakes, which will almost certainly occur, could be very unfair and onerous. The more information the noble Baroness can give us on this, the better.

My Lords, there are two issues here. First, having a no-fly list is a new proposal. It is urgent, but work is ongoing on the issues that the noble Lord mentioned. Secondly, it would not be appropriate to bring some of this information into the wider field because some of these things have to be kept within security circles for security reasons. I am sure the noble Lord understands that.

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s response that it is not appropriate is rather alarming. Will members of the public who are denied access to planes know the basis on which they have been denied access? With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will they be able to have their names removed from the list should it be proved that there had been a mistake? In the US, nearly 5,000 people are on the no-fly list. In the early days, the most frequent name on the list was Williams, which might provoke some problems in this country.

Finally, will the noble Baroness tell us about Hizb ut-Tahrir not meeting the criteria for proscription? What are the criteria for the proscription of certain organisations? Will she lay a paper in the Library to that effect?

My Lords, the noble Baroness should not be alarmed by what I said earlier. These issues are still being worked on. If it is possible to provide information at a later date, we will of course do so. I note the points that have been made about appeal and so on. I cannot give any further information on the criteria for proscription.

My Lords, 20 years ago in Northern Ireland, 45 per cent of those who were charged with terrorist offences had created no prior terrorist traces. Does the Leader of the House feel able to say what comparable statistic applies today for the United Kingdom as a whole?

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have that information with me, but I will certainly seek it and provide it to the noble Lord if at all possible.

My Lords, will the Minister answer really quite a simple question? What rays are to be used in the body scanners? If they are X-rays, which I think they probably are, is there not the danger of irradiation and a health hazard to frequent travellers?

My Lords, that is a very important question. We have looked at these issues to ensure that whatever rays are used could not be harmful to either adults or children. I do not know exactly what rays are to be used; I will come back to the noble Baroness. I am assured that they are not harmful, whatever rays are used.

My Lords, the Leader of the House mentioned several states that could be harbouring terrorists. We have successfully denied Afghanistan and Pakistan to al-Qaeda, so where will it operate from next? Which failed state will it colonise? What will we do about it, and how will we avoid the perils outlined by the noble Lord, Lord McNally?

My Lords, as is clear from the Statement, in addition to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the countries about which we have concerns at the moment are Yemen and Somalia. Apart from working with those countries’ authorities on capacity-building, counterterrorism and so on, we are, as the Statement says, working with them to develop them and to help them socially and economically so that the people who are living in grinding poverty are not attracted by radicalism and al-Qaeda; they are not looking to other ways to get out of their poverty. We are trying to deal with these things at the grass roots before they become a problem.

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, some individuals for one reason or another do not possess a credit or debit card and are therefore obliged to pay cash for their airline tickets, and it would be wrong to prevent such individuals from flying altogether. However, does the noble Baroness agree that, if someone pays cash for their tickets, they should be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny, particularly if the ticket that they have bought is one way.

My Lords, the noble Lord is right that some people might not have access to a credit card and therefore might need to use cash, but those are precisely the sorts of individuals at whom we would look very carefully, perhaps more carefully than those with a credit card, because they might well be suspect in some way, just like those passengers who get on to a long-distance flight with no luggage.

My Lords, in the latter months of last year, the Government told us that there was no evidence that money raised from piracy in the seas around Somalia was getting into the hands of terrorists. I think that she would probably agree that, knowing the amount of money which is passing to those people who conduct piracy, it would be slightly surprising if some of it was not going towards terrorism. Is there any up-to-date information that that money paid in ransoms is going, as one might expect, to terrorists?

My Lords, as I understand it, there is still no evidence to date to suggest that money from piracy or ransoms is funding terrorism, but it is a matter about which we remain concerned and vigilant.

My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that at this time it is vital for us to use every resource we have, one of which is the skill and knowledge that should be in the Foreign Office? I wonder how many Arabists we still have and how we propose to know and identify the threats against which we are working if we have no means of doing so. We will essentially be blind if the FCO is cut any further.

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that we have to use every person and tool available to us. Of course, the personnel in the Foreign Office are of great benefit to the Government and the people of this country. I recognise the concern expressed by the noble Baroness about further cuts. However, I am sure that this and any other Government will be vigilant and will ensure that the requisite people in the Foreign Office remain so that they can work on many other issues, but precisely on the terrorism threat.

My Lords, I have a little difficulty in understanding the relationship between the noble Baroness’s answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and the Prime Minister’s statement about a remit to the Cabinet Secretary. How do those two fit together?

My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, there has been intense and very good co-operation between the services over a long period of time. These things need to be formalised, which is why the Cabinet Secretary has stepped in. But it does not point in any way to a lack of co-ordination between the services.