1-20 of 57 results for subject:Security
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.389 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.011 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Security
- We searched for
- subject_t:Security OR subject_ses:92947
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Ukraine about proposals for the United Kingdom to provide a security guarantee to that country.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Ukraine about proposals for the United Kingdom to provide a security guarantee to that country.
My Lords, a strong sovereign Ukraine is essential for Euro-Atlantic security and the UK’s national security. The UK is steadfast in our support for Ukraine. When the war ends, Ukraine will need to be secure against Russian aggression. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister signed the 100-year partnership with Ukraine, which builds on our bilateral security agreement signed last year, strengthening our security co-operation and forging closer links between our defence industries.
While recognising the sheer bravado of those who executed Operation Spider Web, we have to accept that action has undermined Trump’s wider initiative, jeopardised his offer on the provision of security guarantees and hardened Russia’s attitude to conflict resolution. How can we ever secure a settlement and avoid substantial defence costs being imposed on European taxpayers if Zelensky is allowed to run amok with unilateral actions, thereby scuppering any prospect of an early settlement? With our long experience in diplomacy, why can we not think outside the box and engage with Trump’s people in discussions with Russia over measures to end this war? We cannot rely on Zelensky—he is out of control.
While recognising the sheer bravado of those who executed Operation Spider Web, we have to accept that action has undermined Trump’s wider initiative, jeopardised his offer on the provision of security guarantees and hardened Russia’s attitude to conflict resolution. How can we ever secure a settlement and avoid substantial defence costs being imposed on European taxpayers if Zelensky is allowed to run amok with unilateral actions, thereby scuppering any prospect of an early settlement? With our long experience in diplomacy, why can we not think outside the box and engage with Trump’s people in discussions with Russia over measures to end this war? We cannot rely on Zelensky—he is out of control.
My Lords, not for the first time do I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord. We have a long-standing commitment, which will remain for as long as it takes, to stand alongside Ukraine. Ukraine’s security is our security. We have a responsibility and a duty to the people of Ukraine, many of whom are living here with us still, and we are very pleased to welcome them.
I completely reject the noble Lord’s analysis of the events he referred to, as do my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. We speak all the time to our friends and allies in the United States about this. President Trump wants to see peace, we want to see peace, and President Zelensky has agreed to a ceasefire. The person who could achieve that ceasefire, who could bring peace to Ukraine and who could see the children returned to their homes is President Putin.
My Lords, with undersea internet cable interference presenting only the latest challenge to security, along with threats to energy supply, banking, telecommunications, shipping and other potential use of viruses, should traditional defence chief responses, based on naval and military interventions, remain the main strategies in response? Should we not be reprofiling our expenditure towards nuclear deployments, defence satellite communications, selective sanctions enforcement, political exchange through dialogue and old-fashioned negotiations in conflict zones? The military option, costing billions in Ukraine, has hardly been a success.
My Lords, with undersea internet cable interference presenting only the latest challenge to security, along with threats to energy supply, banking, telecommunications, shipping and other potential use of viruses, should traditional defence chief responses, based on naval and military interventions, remain the main strategies in response? Should we not be reprofiling our expenditure towards nuclear deployments, defence satellite communications, selective sanctions enforcement, political exchange through dialogue and old-fashioned negotiations in conflict zones? The military option, costing billions in Ukraine, has hardly been a success.
To deal with the last part of the question first, I am pleased to see the Prime Minister in Kyiv pursuing what has been a cross-government—and across all parties in majority—defence of freedom and democracy in Ukraine and what that means for the rest of Europe and beyond. With respect to the other points that my noble friend made, he is right to draw attention to the increasing threats to critical underwater infrastructure. The military option is one option that
we need to use. I say that because, as I have said at this Dispatch Box before in answer to, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and others, we must deter people from doing things in the first place. The use of maritime assets and underwater drones, the actions of the Joint Expeditionary Force and those of NATO are key to protecting these vital cable links on which much of our livelihoods, data, telecommunications, energy and so on depend. Military resource is one way in which we have to deal with that.
My Lords, the Minister will recall a debate before Christmas in which his attention was drawn to the availability of drone-jamming signal equipment which could be used to an operational distance of 2,000 feet. It would be avoided by drone users because they would be likely to lose their drones. Why cannot we order and use this equipment to cover our airports?
My Lords, the Minister will recall a debate before Christmas in which his attention was drawn to the availability of drone-jamming signal equipment which could be used to an operational distance of 2,000 feet. It would be avoided by drone users because they would be likely to lose their drones. Why cannot we order and use this equipment to cover our airports?
The noble Lord is right: he pointed out that specific issue, which I have taken up directly with officials. I would ask him also to take part in the consultation. We will be raising his specific point directly with manufacturers.
Does this Question not take us straight back to the issue of authenticity of information in national identity documentation? Do Ministers realise that once an amateur takes a photograph, we could end up with civil servants arguing about whether that photograph is an exact image, whether it is dark, whether it was taken at the right angle, and whether it presents an image of the quality necessary to be put into an official document, with the result that they may end up having to return it to the sender for the sender to resubmit it? Is that not a waste of Civil Service time? It will cost the state money.
Does this Question not take us straight back to the issue of authenticity of information in national identity documentation? Do Ministers realise that once an amateur takes a photograph, we could end up with civil servants arguing about whether that photograph is an exact image, whether it is dark, whether it was taken at the right angle, and whether it presents an image of the quality necessary to be put into an official document, with the result that they may end up having to return it to the sender for the sender to resubmit it? Is that not a waste of Civil Service time? It will cost the state money.
The noble Lord points out precisely the criteria used to measure quality and required for photographs. Those security standards are no different in the online application process than they were in the old paper process. There was no more risk of the customer getting it wrong under the old system than there is under the new system.
To ask the Chairman of Committees what information has been made available to members regarding the purpose of the visitor QR scanner and all associated equipment installed at Peers’ Entrance to the House of Lords.
To ask the Chairman of Committees what information has been made available to members regarding the purpose of the visitor QR scanner and all associated equipment installed at Peers’ Entrance to the House of Lords.
My Lords, the new equipment at Peers’ Entrance is being trialled by the doorkeepers, who are moving from a paper-based system to an electronic one. The Administration and Works Committee has discussed the trial at two of its meetings, and members of the committee have been provided with a briefing note in order to brief other Members in their parties or groups. I also answered a Written Question on this matter on 17 June.
My Lords, I hope that Black Rod will now tell us that the equipment will not require the registration of visitor names and that the use of equipment by Members at this stage is to be voluntary, which will obviously thereby render the system of little benefit in terms of security. If ever it was thought that the use of the equipment should be mandatory, can we have an assurance that the House will be fully consulted and allowed to take the final decision on the introduction of its use?
My Lords, I hope that Black Rod will now tell us that the equipment will not require the registration of visitor names and that the use of equipment by Members at this stage is to be voluntary, which will obviously thereby render the system of little benefit in terms of security. If ever it was thought that the use of the equipment should be mandatory, can we have an assurance that the House will be fully consulted and allowed to take the final decision on the introduction of its use?
The new system is not mandatory; I can give that clarification and assurance completely. I am very conscious that Members often arrange visits at short notice, which prevents them being able to give advance notice to the doorkeepers. Therefore Members will not have to pre-book their guests, who will not be turned away if they are not on the list. If they so wish, Members will still be able to record only the number of guests without the names. Furthermore, I assure the House that the system would not be made mandatory without the House being consulted and the House deciding. However, I encourage Members to book their guests in as it makes the processing of guests coming through that very constricted area much easier; I make that request.
On the issue of security, I partly fall back on the tried and tested formula that it is established policy not to comment publicly on specific matters of security on the parliamentary estate. However, I assure the noble Lord that security was not the primary reason for the introduction of the new system. One of the main reasons was to introduce a slicker, more efficient service for Members and their guests. We are trying to modernise a little and replace the pens and papers with computers. I appreciate that this is one of the challenges that the House faces as it struggles from time to time to come to terms with the technology of the latter half of the 20th century.
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether, in the light of added security requirements arising out of the House of Commons income generation programme, there will be a review of the percentage split between the House of Commons and House of Lords of the costs of the policing contract with...
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether, in the light of added security requirements arising out of the House of Commons income generation programme, there will be a review of the percentage split between the House of Commons and House of Lords of the costs of the policing contract with...
The cost of policing and security on the parliamentary estate is shared between the House of Lords and the House of Commons and is charged to each House directly by the Metropolitan Police Service using a 31:69 share ratio. This ratio was agreed in 1999 and reflects the respective security requirements of the two Houses. It is subject to periodic review and will be reviewed again prior to the commencement of new contractual arrangements in April 2015. The precise security requirements across the parliamentary estate are subject to frequent fluctuating demands dependent on such matters as the two Houses’ sittings times and recess dates, estate and accommodation changes, events, functions, tours and works projects. The overall security profile and the proportion of
police officers and staff required to secure each House has not altered significantly since the 31:69 split was agreed. The majority of costs incurred under the contract are therefore apportioned between the two Houses on this basis. Costs attributable to the additional security requirements arising out of the House of Commons income generation programme are separately identified and factored into pricing. They will be recharged to the House of Commons as appropriate.
To ask the Chairman of Committees, further to his Written Answer on 4 February (WA 15), what portion of the costs indicated in the answer is attributable to costs over and above the core cost of the policing contract with the Metropolitan Police. [HL923]
To ask the Chairman of Committees, further to his Written Answer on 4 February (WA 15), what portion of the costs indicated in the answer is attributable to costs over and above the core cost of the policing contract with the Metropolitan Police. [HL923]
The costs indicated in the Written Answer on 4 February (WA 14) are solely attributable to costs arising from two contracts with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) (2005-2010 and 2010-2015). It is not possible to distinguish between core costs and non-core costs paid since invoices are not submitted on that basis. For the financial years 2009-10 to 2012-13 the costs charged to the House of Lords can be broken down as set out in the table below. The House of Lords Administration no longer holds the relevant detailed information for costs incurred prior to April 2009.
| 2012-13
(£k) | 2011-12
(£k) | 2010-11
(£k) | 2009-10
(£k) | 2008-09
(£k) | |
| Operational
HR (police and police staff pay and associated
costs) | 8,014 | 8,142 | 7,997 | 8,284 | |
| Operational
infrastructure (supplies and equipment, transport, IT and
communications) | 183 | 168 | 164 | 117 | |
| Corporate
overheads (see
below) | 519 | 522 | 553 | 484 | |
| Expenditure
outside the financial cap (expenditure on additional police and
security services requested by the two
Houses) | 153 | 144 | 168 | 0 | |
| Armed
guards | 829 | 829 | 823 | 808 | |
| Total: | 9,697 | 9,804 | 9,705 | 9,693 | 9,333 |
Corporate overheads constitute the contribution of the two Houses towards overhead costs incurred by the wider MPS. This is calculated as a set amount under the contract, based on the established numbers of police officers and police staff as a proportion of total numbers of MPS police officers and police staff or actual usage by MPS officers and staff based at the Palace of Westminster. The fixed corporate overheads towards which both Houses contribute are: Finance Services; Procurement Services; Diversity and Citizen Focus; Directorate of Legal Services; Training and Development; HR Personnel Services; Holding Branch (Police); Logistical Services; Commissioner’s Private Office/ ACPO; Strategy, Modernisation and Performance; Directorate of Information; Directorate of Public Affairs; Contract Management.
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the Houses of Parliament policing contract is planned to become a single contract with House of Lords responsibility for management of the contract being transferred to the Director of Parliamentary Security; and, if so, when.[HL921]
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the Houses of Parliament policing contract is planned to become a single contract with House of Lords responsibility for management of the contract being transferred to the Director of Parliamentary Security; and, if so, when.[HL921]
The Special Services Agreement with the Metropolitan Police Service for the provision of police and security officers on the parliamentary estate is a single contract, jointly signed by the two Corporate Officers on behalf of both Houses of Parliament. Responsibility for the management of the contract was transferred to the Parliamentary Security Director (PSD) on 1 April 2012 following the creation of the post on 1 January 2012. The PSD chairs the Security Contract Steering Group which agrees the annual budget, reviews performance data and exercises change control. Monthly invoices are jointly monitored and verified by officials from both Houses of Parliament. Separate invoices are issued to the Finance Departments of both Houses for payment of each House’s respective share of the contract charges. The budget holder for the House of Lords’ share of the contract costs is Black Rod. The budget holder for the House of Commons’ share of the contract costs is the PSD.
To ask the Chairman of Committees (1) on what date, (2) at what costs, and (3) for what purpose, the Visitor QR Code Scanner and all associated equipment was installed at Peers' Entrance to the House of Lords.[HL722]
To ask the Chairman of Committees (1) on what date, (2) at what costs, and (3) for what purpose, the Visitor QR Code Scanner and all associated equipment was installed at Peers' Entrance to the House of Lords.[HL722]
The scanner and all associated equipment was installed at Peers’ Entrance on 14 May 2013, as part of a trial to improve the reception arrangements for guests at Peers’ Entrance and to enhance access security in respect of visitors. The total cost of the project to date is approximately £20,000 (including VAT). As well as the costs relating to the scanner and associated equipment, this figure also includes additional costs, such as those incurred for software and training.
To ask the Chairman of Committees what market testing has taken place on the provision of policing and security services to the Palace of Westminster. [HL5351]
To ask the Chairman of Committees what market testing has taken place on the provision of policing and security services to the Palace of Westminster. [HL5351]
To date, the Metropolitan Police Service has been assessed as the only provider able to meet the established requirements for policing and security on the parliamentary estate. Market testing for the provision of security personnel will be considered as part of the review of our future requirement and of the contractual arrangements currently being undertaken by the Office of the Parliamentary Security Director.
To ask the Chairman of Committees to what extent members of the Joint Committee on Security were involved in the process of approving the terms of the most recent contract for the provision of policing and security services in the Palace of Westminster.[HL5352]
To ask the Chairman of Committees to what extent members of the Joint Committee on Security were involved in the process of approving the terms of the most recent contract for the provision of policing and security services in the Palace of Westminster.[HL5352]
The terms of the special services agreement (SSA) with the Metropolitan Police Service were subject to a two-year period of review and negotiation leading up to the commencement of the current SSA in April 2010. JCOS was regularly consulted on the security aspects of the review and recommended the renewal of the SSA on the terms proposed.
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the contract for the provision of policing and security services to the Palace of Westminster involves the provision of services exclusively within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster or for areas outside the parliamentary estate.[HL5353]
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the contract for the provision of policing and security services to the Palace of Westminster involves the provision of services exclusively within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster or for areas outside the parliamentary estate.[HL5353]
The special services agreement (SSA) between the parliamentary authorities and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) provides for policing and security services across the parliamentary estate; this includes ensuring the security of the perimeter of the estate. The policing of areas outside the parliamentary estate is a matter for the MPS and not covered by the terms of the SSA.
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the contract for the provision for police and security services to the Palace of Westminster includes measures of (1) man hour contribution, (2) numbers of personnel, (3) administrative contribution, (4) availability of equipment, and (5) other measures of contribution. [HL5354]
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the contract for the provision for police and security services to the Palace of Westminster includes measures of (1) man hour contribution, (2) numbers of personnel, (3) administrative contribution, (4) availability of equipment, and (5) other measures of contribution. [HL5354]
Under the special services agreement between the parliamentary authorities and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), the MPS provides the parliamentary authorities with management information against which the performance of the MPS is measured. This information includes (1) hours worked by police officers and security staff, including hours worked on overtime; (2) numbers of personnel employed, vacancy rates and absence levels due to sickness; (3) a breakdown of charges for relevant administration costs incurred by the MPS; (4) availability of the critical equipment provided by Parliament; (5) MPS performance relating to specified security processes; (6) levels of police officer and security staff training; (7) supervisory ratios; and (8) achievement of MPS fitness standards.
To ask the Chairman of Committees on what basis the division of costs for policing the Palace of Westminster is divided between the House of Commons and the House of Lords; and what contract governs the division of costs between the two Houses. [HL5355]
To ask the Chairman of Committees on what basis the division of costs for policing the Palace of Westminster is divided between the House of Commons and the House of Lords; and what contract governs the division of costs between the two Houses. [HL5355]
The cost of policing and security on the parliamentary estate is shared between the House of Lords and the House of Commons and is charged to each House directly by the Metropolitan Police Service using a 31:69 share ratio. This ratio was agreed in 1999 and reflects the respective security requirements of the two Houses. It is subject to periodic review.
To ask the Chairman of Committees what contracts exist for the provision of security and policing services to the Palace of Westminster by contractors others than the Metropolitan Police.[HL5356]
To ask the Chairman of Committees what contracts exist for the provision of security and policing services to the Palace of Westminster by contractors others than the Metropolitan Police.[HL5356]
No contract, other than the special services agreement between the parliamentary authorities and the Metropolitan Police Service, provides for security and policing services on the parliamentary estate.
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the contract with the Metropolitan Police for the provision of security and policing services to the Palace of Westminster provides for the sub-contracting of policing and security services.[HL5121]
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the contract with the Metropolitan Police for the provision of security and policing services to the Palace of Westminster provides for the sub-contracting of policing and security services.[HL5121]
Under the special services agreement the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is required to provide appropriately trained staff with a view to ensuring the security of the Parliamentary Estate. The MPS directly employs the police officers and security staff who perform this service. Neither party to the agreement is entitled to sub-contract its obligations without the prior written consent of the other party.
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the House of Lords directly employs security or policing staff for policing and security duties on the parliamentary estate; and whether any such expenditure falls outside expenditure on the current contract with the Metropolitan Police.[HL5122]
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the House of Lords directly employs security or policing staff for policing and security duties on the parliamentary estate; and whether any such expenditure falls outside expenditure on the current contract with the Metropolitan Police.[HL5122]
Police officers and security staff working on the Parliamentary Estate are not directly employed by the House of Lords. The tasks of some Lords staff, such as the doorkeepers and attendants, contain a limited security element. The costs of employing these staff are not included within the expenditure on the special services agreement with the Metropolitan Police Service.
To ask the Chairman of Committees what was the annual cost of the House of Lords share of the parliamentary estate police contract in each year since 2008.[HL4880]
To ask the Chairman of Committees what was the annual cost of the House of Lords share of the parliamentary estate police contract in each year since 2008.[HL4880]
Costs are shared with the House of Commons on a 69:31 House of Commons:House of Lords basis. The annual cost to the House of Lords was as follows:
2008-09—£9,333,000;
2009-10—£9,693,000;
2010-11—£9,705,000; and
2011-12—£9,804,000.