Inside the response to a ‘critical’ threat
A decade ago, the last time Britain faced a plot so severe, I served in the team that made the hard choices
Ihad been secretary of state for transport for just a few weeks. It was August 2006 and I was on holiday with my young family on the Isle of Mull when I received a phone call from my permanent secretary telling me that an “official” was being dispatched from London to brief me on an issue “that cannot be discussed on an open line”.
The next day I met that official on the jetty at Fionnphort, brought him back to our cottage, where I was told that the security services had a group of suspects under surveillance who, it was believed, intended to use liquid bombs to simultaneously bring down a number of transatlantic airliners.
Within hours an RAF helicopter landed in a nearby field and flew me to Battersea helipad. Those first meetings in Whitehall involved briefings from officials including Eliza Manninghambuller, then director general of MI5.
The decision when to arrest those under surveillance is not for ministers, but an operational one for the police. They have to balance the need to accumulate evidence admissible in court (so that convictions can be made) with the need not to act too late and risk public safety. These are difficult judgments. In 2006 that judgment was effectively made for us: word arrived that the Pakistani authorities had, without consultation, arrested an individual involved in the plot, thereby requiring “executive action” in Britain to commence – otherwise the Ukbased suspects would disperse.
During the Cobra meetings that followed, two facts shaped our discussions. First, our security screening at airports had no means of identifying the liquids that could be combined to produce an explosive. This is why that night I took the (still unpopular) decision, on the advice of scientific and security experts, to limit the amount of liquid a passenger can take on to a plane.
Second, while the police had moved swiftly to arrest those MI5 had under surveillance, we didn’t know if others were at large. The Joint Terrorist Assessment Centre therefore assessed that the terror threat was now “critical”, and John Reid, the home secretary, and I accepted it.
Working with the police, the security services, scientific experts and departmental officials affirmed to me just how fortunate we are to live in this country. These public servants combine dedication, professionalism, expertise and bravery. They’re not in it for the money, or the glory, and certainly not to advance any political agenda. Their only agenda is to keep their fellow citizens safe. To claim otherwise tells you much more about their critics than these good people on whom we all rely.
Given the attack in Manchester, Cobra has been meeting again. The threat level has been raised, as in 2006, to “critical”. That all of this is happening in the middle of a general election is, of course, unsettling.
None of us – least of all the Army – like seeing troops on our streets. I hope and believe they will be returned to barracks as soon as the security assessment allows. And there will be time, later, for important debates about levels of funding for the police, whether the Prevent strategy can be made more effective, and about how intelligence is gathered, interpreted, and shared with allies.
But let’s remember who we are. The response of the people of Manchester reminded us all that we’re a country defined by a sense of common decency and fair play. A sense, still, that we hold more in common than that which divides us. Our shared values are, in fact, a vital weapon against terrorism. If we tear away the fabric of trust that binds us together, we’ll all lose.
Notwithstanding the election, ministers, the police and intelligence agencies all still have difficult and vital responsibilities to discharge. It’s easy – and almost reflexive – to impugn the motives of politicians. Yet what I observe are politicians from all parties trying to get their words and actions right in circumstances none of them would ever have wanted.
Our democracy is precious. So as the campaigning recommences let’s debate and disagree vigorously, let’s question each other’s policies, but let’s not question each other’s motives in trying to keep us all safe. We’re British, and we’re better than that.