Weird and scary

These are extracts from Hansard via They Work For You, if I had not seen them with my own eyes I would not have believed them. Thanks to Elaib Harvey for the tip.

From the proceedings of the House of Lords on 14 September 2001:
"Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Conservative)

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I was about to refer to the investigation and to explain why it was inadequate and why the inquiry should be re-opened.

A French voice was overplayed on the microphone system for the precise duration of the comments made by my noble friend Lady Cox on this issue of international terrorism. Several of us who followed her activities were convinced that this was a warning from the violent Islamists to show that they had penetrated the sound systems, and therefore the security, of this House. It was also, of course, a warning to my noble friend. It was the sort of warning with which those of us who used to support the dissidents before the Wall came down were all too familiar.

Our conviction was based on our knowledge of my noble friend's extraordinarily courageous human rights activities, which had brought her into conflict with the fundamentalist regimes in the Sudan, Azerbaijan and elsewhere. These experiences had allowed her to be one of the first people, and certainly the best-known person, in this country to piece together much of the violent Islamist network being assembled by Osama bin Laden and his associates. We checked our conclusion with friends in Washington, who were working officially on the bin Laden case, and they had no doubt that our fears were well founded. So my noble friend raised these concerns with the Palace authorities, with the Intelligence and Security Committee in the other place, and with our national intelligence agencies, but she was given the brush off. She was told that it had just been a fault with the microphone, although they could not explain what the fault was or how it worked. Our friends in Washington, however, could tell us exactly how the effect could have been achieved.

Some time later, on 30th July, an article appeared in the Sunday Times, alleging that an associate of bin Laden, Mr Salah Idris, was a major shareholder in a British company which provided security systems to the Houses of Parliament, the Royal Courts of Justice, New Scotland Yard and several leading British companies. When my noble friend and I tried to discover whether there might have been any connection between those allegations and the jamming of her speech, we were again given the brush off. My noble friend was told that she could relax, because Mr Idris had,

"no day-to-day involvement in the running of the company concerned".

I was advised that I could not ask the Government questions about the security of the Palace of Westminster because this Palace was not the Government's responsibility.

I agree that this is not the time to dwell in great detail on those events, but it is appropriate to put them on the record and to ask the Government to re-open their inquiry into them. Perhaps they could be put on the agenda for the meeting between my noble friend and the Home Secretary which, let us hope, will take place as a result of his remarks on this morning's "Today" programme.

I finish where I started. It is the duty of all of us to support our peace-loving Muslim friends, and to encourage them to join with us in identifying and bringing to justice all those violent Islamists who are just as much their enemy as they are ours, perhaps more so. As we embark upon this journey of collaboration and fellowship, I trust that we may be fortified by a verse from the Koran which shows how far the violent Islamists have strayed from what should be their true creed. Chapter 3, verse 84, reads as follows:

"We believe in God and what is revealed to us in that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmail, to Isaac and Jacob and the tribes of Israel, and that which the Lord gave to Moses and to Jesus and the Prophets. We discriminate against none of them. To Him we have surrendered ourselves".

Let us do just that, my Lords. Let us do it firmly, and let us do it with our true Muslim friends."


You can read this in context here and here.



From the proceedings of the House of Lords on 21 November 2005:
"Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Conservative)

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to the speech this afternoon by my noble friend Lady Cox. I agree with the noble Lord that she has done more than anyone else in your Lordships' House to warn of the growing danger that militant Islamism poses to western society and the wider world.

Her warnings are well documented and go back in the official record to well before 9/11, at least to her contribution on the gracious Speech of 18 November 1999. On that occasion she exposed Islamist activities in Sudan, the Caucasus, Dagestan and Chechnya. She also drew attention to the threat that violent Islamism already posed to this country, by quoting the militant leaders Abu Hamza and Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, speaking thus a few days previously in London:

"We declare that we will never rest until we establish the Khilafah, that is an Islamic State for all Muslims worldwide, which will be a shield behind which Muslims can protect themselves and from behind which they can fight the enemies of Allah".—[Official Report, 18/11/99; col. 100.]

That sort of talk does not endear one to the jihad. I for one was not at all surprised when her next major speech here, on 12 January 2000, was jammed. I had had the interesting pleasure of paying an undercover visit to the Soviet Union with my noble friend before the wall came down. We were both familiar with the kind of warnings one receives when one antagonises large and evil organisations.

My noble friend referred today to the extraordinary complacency with which our police, security services and Palace authorities reacted to the incident by trying to pretend that her speech had been jammed by a faulty microphone, even when no such faulty microphone could be discovered. Disquieted by this, we also raised questions—as she mentioned—about a report in the Sunday Times on 30 July 2000. This revealed that a Mr Salah Idris, whose factory outside Khartoum was destroyed by US cruise missiles after being linked to Osama bin Laden, had a substantial shareholding in IES Digital Systems, a UK company supplying high-tech surveillance and security management to the Palace of Westminster, New Scotland Yard, the Royal Courts of Justice, some of our nuclear power stations, several of our Armed Forces establishments, Canary Wharf and British Airways, Texaco and other blue-chip companies.

After much toing and froing, our security services confirmed that this was so and obligingly revealed that Mr Idris had increased his shareholding to 75 per cent. However, and this is the astonishing point, they suggested that we had no need to worry, because Mr Idris,

"does not have any day-to-day involvement in the running of the company".

Your Lordships can relax.

For a statement that reveals the chasm between our security services, police and bureaucracy on the one hand, and the real world on the other, I submit that that must just about take the biscuit. If you own 75 per cent of a company, you single-handedly fix the remuneration of the directors, can personally hire and fire them and can change the company's memorandum and articles of association at will. Also, you do not presumably increase your shareholding from 25 per cent in 2000 to 75 per cent a year later—after 9/11—unless you are pretty interested in what the company is up to.

This sort of story makes some of us reluctant to believe the police when they say that they need the power to lock people up for 90 days without charge. At least, it makes one nervous.

I very much hope that the Minister will address herself seriously to the questions raised by my noble friend Lady Cox, particularly as to whether terrorists are using their money to buy into our national infrastructure, with the aim of destroying our economy and security from within."


You can read this in context here and here.



From the proceedings of the House of Lords 21 November 2005:
"Baroness Cox:...
I reluctantly return to an issue that I have repeatedly raised, but to which I have had no satisfactory answer from the Government or the relevant authorities. On 12 January 2000 I was speaking in your Lordships' House about that film and about the teaching of terrorist activities in this country when unprecedented interference to the microphones drowned my voice. The interference ceased 10 seconds before the end of my speech. It is entirely compatible with some kind of jamming. I was advised by the authorities here that it was caused by "a faulty microphone", but I have since been advised that a thorough investigation showed no problems with the sound system, leaving as the only plausible explanation that it was intentional interference by someone with inside access.

I took independent advice from international experts whose analysis I am willing to make available. They robustly disagreed with the replies that I had been given. They claimed that the only technically feasible and statistically reasonable explanation was that it was an inside job. They pointed out that such jamming is easy to achieve and that it demonstrates the ability to penetrate the security of Parliament, shows contempt for democracy, was a specific threat to me, and a general threat to anyone who dares to speak critically about Islamists.

Having failed to elicit any serious response from authorities here, my concern was renewed by a newspaper report in the Sunday Times on 30 July 2000 entitled:

"Commons Security Firm Run By Terror Suspect".


Some excerpts are relevant, such as:

"A Sudanese businessman who has been linked by the American CIA to the world's most wanted terrorist is the leading shareholder in a company that provides security systems to the House of Parliament . . . Salah Idris, 48, whose pharmaceutical factory in Sudan was flattened by American cruise missiles after it was linked to Osama Bin Laden . . . owns 25 per cent of IES, a company specialising in high-technology surveillance and security management".


The article claims that that firm also provided such equipment to New Scotland Yard, British Airways, Texaco and other blue chip firms.

I cannot comment on the allegations that Salah Idris has links with terrorism, but his ownership of the pharmaceutical factory demonstrates his close relationship with the Islamist regime in Khartoum.

21 Nov 2005 : Column 1425



When Parliament resumed, I tabled a Written Question. The reply on 9 October 2000 confirmed Salah Idris's involvement in that firm. It admitted that the firm also installed surveillance equipment in the Royal Courts of Justice and provided digital playback systems for New Scotland Yard, but that Salah Idris had no day-to-day involvement in running the firm.

I put the matter, if not my mind, to rest until, after the horrors of 9/11, a journalist informed me that Salah Idris had increased his shareholding to 75 per cent. An article in the Observer on 14 October 2001 confirmed that and quotes the marketing manager of IES saying:

"We provide security for some of the most sensitive sites in the UK, right up to government Ministers and the Army".


A subsequent article in the Observer on 4 November 2001 revealed that Salah Idris also held a 20 per cent stake in the security firm Protec. The article states:

"Salah Idris . . . has multi-million pound investments in two British security firms through a secretive offshore company. These firms act as security consultants and supply security systems at 11 nuclear installations in the UK, including Dounreay and Sellafield. They also have security contracts with some of Britain's top potential terrorist targets, including Canary Wharf, the House of Commons and Army bases. The companies would have highly sensitive details of all the facilities where they install equipment".


I shall repeat the two questions that I have asked before, for which for four years I have received no satisfactory answer. They are germane to the Bill and to its wider implications. First, does either existing or proposed legislation provide protection against financial penetration of and influence in UK institutions of key political military and strategic significance?

Secondly, as Oliver Letwin in another place asked when he was shadow Home Secretary:

"In the current climate, people will be rightly concerned about the Observer's allegations, which raise very serious questions. They require an urgent response. Either the Government cleared Mr Idris of any wrongdoing, or they should launch an immediate investigation".


Before concluding, I point to similar concerns demonstrated by Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, expert on financial institutions and director of the American Center for Democracy, and her analysis of an American security firm, Ptech. That firm develops enterprise blueprints at the highest level of US Government and corporate infrastructure, which hold every important functional, operational and technical detail of the enterprise. Ptech's clients in 2001 included the US Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, Customs, Air Force, the White House, IBM, Sysco, Motorola and many others.

She claims that examples of information gathered by using Ptech's capabilities would include: a complete blueprint of a nuclear waste disposal site; the security procedures required to access military bases during transfer of nuclear waste materials; details of security rules and procedures; and specifications for Smartcards as implemented in various defence facilities, which could be used to make templates for unauthorised production of fake Smart IDs for potential use by terrorists.

21 Nov 2005 : Column 1426

Ptech's Middle East branch, called Horizons, received projects directly from Ptech and is used to outsource projects for Ptech's clients. They include the Saudi Bin Laden Company and the Afghan-based BTC—Bin Laden Telecom. Among Ptech's top investors and management in 2001 was Yassin al-Qadi who was listed as a specially designated global terrorist on 12 October 2001.

Rachel Ehrenfeld continues with a long list, and concludes, as do I, with a question. She asks:

"How could a small, Saudi-based company with questionable terrorist connections obtain significant government and business contracts . . . even more importantly, are there other Ptechs around?".


I do not comment on Rachel Ehrenfeld's disturbing analysis, but I echo her questions. Does the Bill ensure that terrorists are not using their money to buy into our national infrastructure to undermine our economy and security from within? Does it adequately provide measures to prevent such infiltration? I hope that the Minister will answer those questions and provide assurances on those serious issues."

and the answer...
"Lord Soley: My Lords, it may be something of an understatement to describe the previous speech as intriguing, but I shall leave it to the Minister as I do not have an answer to those questions. "

I can see no answer to this point from the Minister concerned

You can read this in context here



From the proceedings of the House of Lords 20 December 2005:
"Baroness Cox (Crossbench)

I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and have clarified and enhanced the concerns I tried to express. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, very graciously pressed these points with great eloquence and I am grateful for his clarification and persistence on the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter, as I said in my opening remarks, must move a little from the specific to the general and from the general to the specific. It deals with the question of undue influence by people who might have terrorist intent through the financial influence of firms of key strategic significance of various kinds.

As the Minister rightly said, I do not expect clarification on matters which have specific security sensitivities. That would cover relationships concerning the Houses of Parliament. We also talked about other organisations; as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, we are really talking about the whole of our industrial, commercial and charitable infrastructure. On the arrangements for ensuring appropriate employment or vetting procedures, I understood the noble Baroness to say that the responsibility lies with employers or contractors. That must be a matter of public transparency. That is not in the realm of the secret and the sensitive; we are dealing with firms such as Texaco, British Airways and others. I am still not sure how much reassurance we have had on the procedures that are in place to ensure that for key posts in those firms, there is adequate vetting for sensitive areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Park, highlighted a point which has been at the heart of my concern. Here we must move from the general to the specific. There is almost a cartel of security surveillance firms. Security surveillance for a whole range of organisations is arranged through two firms—IEDS and Protec. The range of those firms is enormously significant, particularly when one of the key financial personnel in that firm has close links with the Islamist regime in Khartoum. Saleh Idris owned a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, and anyone who owns a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum must have very close links with the National Islamic Front regime, which is committed to spreading militant Islam throughout Africa and beyond. We must move from the general to the specific in terms of transparency, safeguards and general principle.

Disagreeing for a moment with the Minister, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said. We are addressing a specific kind of terrorism: Islamist terrorism. Of course the vast majority of Muslims in this country are peaceable, law-abiding and very hospitable, but there is a definite strand within the Islamic community in this country—and it is incontrovertible—that is committed to Islamist terrorism and is underpinned by an Islamist ideology which promotes terrorism. That is particularly worrying given the relaxation of restrictions concerning imams in this country. Those of us who have followed these issues, read the websites and heard the speeches know that there are people in this country who are promoting Islamist terrorism—Abu Hamza did it freely for many years—and that many people have come under their influence. We have people who are encouraged by their ideology to promote terrorist activities. It is a new scene which the amendment—which I said was probing—is designed to address.

I thank the Minister for being so gracious as to call this a delightful debate; it may have been, but I found it disturbing as well. I have not been reassured about the heart of the matter, but I will read extremely closely all that the Minister has said. I will consult with people inside and outside this House who share my deep concerns over these deep issues for the security of our country and of innocent civilians who will stand to suffer if we get this wrong. In the meantime, reserving the right to come back after further consultation, I thank all who have contributed to the debate and enhanced my concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment."


You can read this in context here.



I find this rather a worrying matter, does anyone know what, if any, conclusions Baroness Cox has reached in this regard?