04/11/2015 Newsnight

Did Islamic State put a bomb on a Russian airliner? This was the

Foreign Secretary less than an hour ago after a meeting of the Cobra

emergency committee. We have concluded there is a significant

possibility the crash was caused by an explosive device on-board the

aircraft. As the investigation continues more than 15,000 British

holiday-makers in Sharm el-Sheikh will be brought home but there will

be no more British flights to the resort. A terra specialist and

diplomat will tell us what they think is on. -- terra.

Also tonight, the government plans allowing

for extensive online surveillance were put out in the open today.

We will be joined by the journalist who broke the Edward Snowden

revelations. Can we strike the right balance?

In a school for deaf children, we reveal the perpetrator of

Vision of the UK followed by Ireland to put a stop to flights to and from

Sharm el-Sheikh just as the Egyptian president arrived in the UK.

Tonight, Philip Hammond said the threat was such there will be no

British flights to and from the resort where there remains 15,000

British tourists. This evening the Prime Minister has chaired another

Cobra meeting at which we have reviewed information we have

available from a range of sources. As a result of that review,

we have concluded that there is a significant possibility that that

crash was caused by an explosive Earlier this evening, we delayed the

return to the UK of British-bound flights that were on the ground at

Sharm el-Sheikh while we conducted a Unfortunately we have concluded we

have to change our travel advice and we are advising against all but

essential travel by air through Sharm el-Sheikh airport, which means

there will be no UK passenger flights out to Sharm el-Sheikh from

now. Passengers who are on the ground in Sharm el-Sheikh will be

returned to the UK. We are working with the airlines and Egyptian

authorities to put in place emergency procedures for additional

screening and additional security to ensure they can get home safely,

either on their original return dates or if they wish to leave

earlier, on an earlier date, although I should emphasise we are

not changing our advice with regard to the threat level in the Sharm

el-Sheikh resort itself. I recognise this action will cause immense

disruption and inconvenience to many people and I apologise to the people

this evening who have gone out to the airport and have had to go back

to their hotels. I also recognise the immense impact this will have on

the Egyptian economy. But we have to put the safety and security of

British nationals above all other considerations. When we are in

possession of information we will not hesitate to act on it in order

to protect that security and we will take whatever criticisms we

receive. We have to act in the interests of British nationals.

Our chief international correspondent joins us. Reaction as

you are getting it in Cairo. To a number of things, first the idea it

probably according to the British was a bomb, and secondly not only

have British experts gone to the airport at Sharm el-Sheikh, but

there will be no more flights, whatever they found tonight, led to

the decision there will be no more flights. I have spoken to Egypt's

Foreign Minister who is absolutely furious, saying Britain has jumped

to conclusions and come out with what he described as an unwarranted

statement even before investigation is concluded. He said it had been

catastrophic for the millions of Egyptians who depend on tourism. You

heard Philip Hammond expressing regret for Egyptians who work in the

tourism sector, but you have to bear in mind, even in the worst times in

Egypt, and there have been turbulent moments, Sharm el-Sheikh always

seemed somehow far from the violence. The tourists kept coming

stop the amount of British tourists, they used to be 2 million British

tourists, making up the second-largest group, that is down

to one million and that is certain to come down more, in Sharm

el-Sheikh and other parts of Egypt, because the question will be

raised, how secure is Egypt? I spoke to President Sisi before he came to

London, insisting that Egypt was under control of Egyptian forces and

if there is a doubt about that it is a doubt too many for people wanting

to go on holiday. President Sisi arriving in the UK tonight and

Philip Hammond has been clear there is some information the British

Government has that leads them to believe British tourists will not be

safe flying to or from Sharm el-Sheikh, which is a serious

allegation. It is a very serious allegation. The Foreign Minister

said they had taken in hand security precautions around Sharm el-Sheikh

airport, recognised by the British, although they say there has not been

enough. It is more than Britain, there are statements coming from the

US, who are saying similar things to the British. You remember the same

thing happened with Tunisia, when Philip Hammond came out and said, we

have decided after the terrible attack at a resort, it was no longer

safe for British tourist, which provoked a furious reaction among

Tunisians, who like Egypt depend on tourism. You have the balance

between the interest of British lives and livelihoods of people of

this region, for tourism is one of the last threads in their failing

economies and that now is at risk. Our diplomatic editor has been

following the story today. Attention is now focused on Sharm

el-Sheikh airport, which British security experts on their way to

test its anti-terrorist defences. As they work, there are fears that 224

lives may have been taken by a non-smuggled on board the Russian

airliner. My own assumption was that it was probably more likely to be

mechanical, but given the statement Downing Street has put out, I think

we have to assume there is some basis on which to assume a bomb

might have been involved. At the crash site, rescue workers are still

gathering remains and evidence. But the facts are crystallising that the

plane exploded at high altitudes. Yesterday the Americans revealed

their satellites detected that blast. Today it Egyptian

investigators confirmed what had happened, although they held open

the possibility a catastrophic failure could have caused it. In the

past 24 hours the UK has received intelligence confirming the bomb

theory. We put safety as a priority and that is why we have taken the

measures we have taken today. There have been people sent from the UK

today to review security arrangements at the airport. That is

taking place and it is when that review is completed we will allow

flights there tonight to depart. At the end of September America issued

a travel advisory saying Egypt and much of the Sinai peninsula was

dangerous but insisting Sharm el-Sheikh was safe. Two days ago the

US Embassy in Cairo change that, telling staff to avoid anywhere in

the Sinai Peninsula and Sharm el-Sheikh itself was deemed too

risky. The Egyptian Foreign Ministry responded by asking why the embassy

had done such a thing? A measure of their sensitivity to anything that

might cripple the tourist trade. TRANSLATION: This is one way to nail

the stability of Egypt and image of Egypt. The plane was at 31,000 feet

altitude. This area is under our full control. With his leader

arriving tonight to protests in London, the Egyptian Foreign

Minister expressed his disappointment the UK acted before

the official enquiry had reached any definitive conclusion.

Diplomatically, Britain's timing could not have been much worse. I

have spoken to the Egyptian Foreign Minister and I recognise his

concern. Of course this will have a negative impact for Egypt, but with

respect to him, he has not seen all the information we have, and while

we regard the Egyptians as important partners, we want to work with them

not just on airport security but all aspects of the development of their

record me, and the building of Anglo Egyptian relations, when we see

something we believe represents a threat to British nationals we have

to act. And the other consequences have to be dealt with, but we cannot

ignore that information. Tonight, up to 20,000 British holiday-makers are

still in Sharm el-Sheikh, with flights suspended. The government

will soon announce how those who want to come home can do so. Mark is

with me now. What do we know about what happened to this plane? Has

something changed in view of intelligence? In terms of what has

happened in the past 24 hours, it is not a piece of intelligence that

clearly attributes this act to Islamic State in Sinai, nobody is

saying that. They are talking about a real possibility, may well have,

this kind of thing. It appears it goes back to analysis of material

gathered in the run-up to the attack by interception of communications.

The Americans seem to have had this material and interpreted it before

we did hence the statement from the Cairo embassy to staff to avoid

Sharm el-Sheikh on the 2nd of November. We now seem to have it.

The Foreign Secretary's words imply it came through that sort of

arrangement and Egypt does not yet have that material. It suggests

whatever you want to call it, planning for an attack, possibly not

specifying an aeroplane, but in the Sharm el-Sheikh area, which is why

the area itself is deemed unsafe. Particular to Britain is the fact it

is a popular destination for British tourists. Do you think we will have

any conclusive evidence? If they find evidence of an explosion on the

plane and trace back how exactly a bomb was put on them would give you

conclusive answers. For the moment, everybody is playing it through

their own prism. The UK, the country that puts the safety of its people

first and believes it is right to collect information on a large scale

because it can give clues to this sort of activity and allow you to

give warning. Egypt hoping it will not be a bomb because that will be

devastating for the tourist industry, and Russia trying to

project, until it is conclusively proven, that this was not a bomb. To

discuss the significance of the events today I am joined by the

former director of global counterterrorism at MI6. In London

UK's former ambassador to Egypt and from Oxford, an analyst who

specialises in Islamic State. What do you make of this gathering of

intelligence prior to the airliner being downed, which seems to lead to

the conclusion there was an explosion? Yes indeed it seems to be

that conclusion. Certainly there must be something serious and

credible in the way of intelligence that suggests that, or else the

Foreign Secretary would not make that statement. As was pointed out,

it has not been ascribed yet to Islamic State, although clearly

Islamic State would be the main suspect. What's more Islamic State

has twice claimed responsibility, including today when it said again

it was responsible for bringing down this Russian plane and did not

reveal how it had done it but saying it would do so in due course. If it

is Islamic State or a cell of Islamic State, what does that say

about the organisation's capability? I think it says a number

of things. We must not forget the local operations and tension in

Sinai mounting as there is increasing Islamic. We must not

forget Islamic State has a global reach and ambitions. This is in part

a message, perhaps, to Russian potential recruits, saying to them

they are not forgotten in the fight. From the point of view of the

diplomatic relationship with Egypt, as a former ambassador, we hear the

Egyptian Foreign Minister has taken this badly, but is the bigger point

is that the worry or accusation would be Egypt cannot manage the

terror threat? The Egyptians are understandably

upset. They should remember that Britain has had the strongest record

of supporting positive travel advice wherever possible, wherever it is

consistent with the safety of our citizens. We are the ones who kept

our advice open for Sharm el-Sheikh, or during the time after the

revolution when others closed it off. Recently, after the attack in

February last year, we again kept it open when others closed it off. We

have taken things very seriously and very positively. Nobody can fault us

on that. You know Egypt extremely well. And in the aftermath of the

airliner being downed, or whatever happened, there was all sorts of

conversations on BBC Radio programmes about the poorest nature

of security at Sharm el-Sheikh. What is your experience of Sharm

el-Sheikh airport? It's a continuous process. Whenever human security is

involved, to keep tightening up, to keep reforming, and there were times

when we were co-operating closely, we had experts coming from London.

We have had a active programme, much appreciated by the Egyptian Civil

Aviation of training in detection at airports, so this is a continuation

of that, really. We have taken the unusual step of grounding flights to

Britain for the moment. Indeed for the foreseeable future it seems. Sir

Richard Barrett, if it is IS, what do you think the Russian reaction to

this will be? I think it is very significant if it is Islamic State.

Up till now, the Islamic State has been about state building, about

attracting people to join it in Iraq and Syria. And where people can't,

it's encouraged them to commit attacks, and we have seen a few

minor attacks committed by individuals, or small groups of

people, which may have been inspired by the Islamic State, but certainly

not planned and directed. Here, this is a very major terrorist attack,

probably about the most major terrorist attack on an airline since

9/11. So it has huge significance and it changes our perception of the

Islamic State as being some sort of terrorist group into something

other. That changes several equations within Syria as well, the

Russian equation, you know, the Russian engagement now, has that

encouraged terrorists to attack more directly Russian targets? We know

there are at least 2,500 Russians fighting be the Islamic State. The

equation of people on the other side in that should they be supplying

weapons now to any party in Syria which might then fall into the hands

of the Islamic State. Katherine Brown, you said IS was looking for a

global reach. Do you think this would be the moment, if it is indeed

IS, where IS does change, you know, you have heard Sir Richard say that

the terror threat level will be upped because of this? Yes, I think

it's worth remembering that Islamic State are rooted in local politics

and it has always proclaimed that territories are important to itself

and to its legitimacy. What is important here is that by targeting

a Russian plane, sorry, Russian tourists, it is suggesting to

Russian recruits to come to Islamic State and say they care about that

fight. I'd suggest that really it remains very much a localised

ambition at the moment and that other groups are trying to affiliate

with Islamic State to tap into the resources and the funding that it

has. But also the groups that are claiming affiliation with Islamic

State are longer-standing groups, they have long had complaints

against the Egyptian state in relation to Gaza but also in

relation to jobs in Sinai. Just on that basis, then, if it is a

disparate number of groups, it will make it much harder to crackdown on,

to find them? James Watt? The Egyptians have been facing this

problem for a long time. There are many people in Sinai, or around

Sharm el-Sheikh, who want the tourist industry to thrive and

continue. It isn't simply a police operation. There is a strong local

community interest in keeping that very important economic resource

going. We have now President al-Sisi, who has been in the country

for less than four hours. I know you are not involved in the visit. It

will be a diplomatic minefield, isn't it? It is a very good chance

to explain it to him, and I'm sure, when he sees the facts, he will

react positively. Thank you very much.

If it becomes clear that the intelligence

about a possible explosion on board the downed Russian plane did not

come from the wreckage, it begs the question - was it at least in part

If so, it could be a boost for the Government's plans, unveiled

today for extensive surveillance powers for our digital age.

The plans include the requirement for Internet providers to hold data

on what websites we all visit for 12 months - measures ministers say are

But the balance between protecting privacy and enabling agencies to

operate in the digital age is still heavily disputed -

particularly since Edward Snowden leaked details of mass surveillance

We asked Nick Hopkins to look at how it might work.

Today, we discovered the boundaries of our surveillance state. What the

spies want to spy on. The police want to pry on. And why. Who will

stop these intrusive powers from being abused? So how would this work

in practice? Let's look at three examples. In the first, police

receive a tip-off that a teacher and a pupil are having an illegal

relationship and are regularly talking on the phone. Both deny it.

A detective who wants to see their phone records has to get the OK from

two specialist police officers. They will decide if getting this

information is necessary and proportionate. They say he can. A

print-out of the numbers called show the two haven't been in contact and

the officer concludes the initial claims were false.

In another case, a university student has been radicalised and the

police want to know more. The police officer gets the OK from two

colleagues. He is allowed to get basic details of who the suspect has

called and e-mailed and what websites he has looked at. If the

detective wants further information, he has to seek a warrant from the

Home Secretary and a judge. They give their approval and the police

can now listen to the suspect's phone conversations and read his

e-mails. A final example - local councils, a

little less serious, perhaps, but supposing they suspect someone of

selling fake watches. In theory, they can go via a magistrate to get

hold of phone data. But the new law prevents them accessing the

suspect's Internet records. This draft law appears to have clipped

their wings. Judges signing warrants was one of Theresa May's concessions

to privacy campaigners. But they say it's a con. Judges can only say no

on certain limited grounds. The arguments have already begun.

Joining me now from Rio is the journalist who broke the Edward

Snowden story, and here with me is David Anderson. David Anderson,

presumably, you were the man with oversight, you must have some

concerns, don't you, at what Liberty say also be a breathtaking attack on

the Internet security of every man, woman and child in our country? I

have oversight of the terrorism law. I did a report on the surveillance.

There are three judges who have oversight of surveillance. What this

law is trying to add to the dizzying range of powers the intelligence

agencies already have is one more power, albeit quite a serious one,

and that's the power to require service providers in this country to

keep Internet records. You seem to be suggesting the dizzying range of

powers are necessary? Dizzying range? The reason I welcome this

Bill is, for the first time in this country, and there aren't many

countries who have done this, it sets out in terms what these powers

are. They would have surprised a lot of people two or three years ago.

They are all set out there. Is there something to be said for that, what

this Bill does is put it all out in the open? Yeah, I agree with what Mr

Anderson has just said. Before Edward Snowden came forward, the

thing that bothered him the most is not the spying itself, but the fact

this was implemented in total secrecy in democracies. His argument

was if we are going to allow the government to spy on everything we

are doing on the Internet, the government should have to come

forward to say this is what we are doing, we want your permission under

the law to do it. It is the first time they have been forced to do it.

That is a positive step. The British Government, we are the first

government to mandate Internet providers to store a year's worth of

browsing history. By the same token, do you think the fact it is out in

the open makes that OK? No, to be perfectly honest, I don't think a

Bill like this would be presentable, let alone viable in other Western

country, besides the UK, which does tend to be on the far end of the

pro-surveillance spectrum. It is radical to say that every single

person's browsing history must be kept and stored and made available

to the Government if the Government wants it. Even the judicial review

that Theresa May was pitching today, as the Conservative MP David Davis

pointed out today, it is an illusion because the narrow scope of that

review makes it that it is going to be a rubber-stamp. Is it an

illusion? I think judicial authorisation will be a big

improvement. I pushed very hard for it in my report. There is no point

doing it if the judge is going to be a rubber-stamp. This has to be

judges who are properly supported, technically, legally, who are able

to get into the issues and who are, from time to time, able to say no.

Judges aren't democratically accountable? Neither is the

Secretary of State when it comes to warrants. You name me one example of

a warrant in respect of which the Secretary of State has been held to

account in Parliament. It doesn't happen, partly because it's a

criminal offence to disclose the existence of the warrant. Do you

accept as far as journalism is concerned, by holding and having

access to a year's worth of records, a source, a journalistic source

could be as it were jigsawed identified in one way and that is an

erosion of our liberty? What the Bill has sought to do is to build on

the existing practice by making sure that there is never any application

for a journalist's communication data without the authorisation of a

judge. We have to assume the judges are going to be alert to that point.

It is fair to say that there isn't exactly a public outcry about this

in as much as the latest report says 53% in a survey backed the

Government and there is cross-party support for this: Do you think the

mood, and because of what we have been talking about, about the

possibility that the IS was involved in that airline downing, that

actually people support this in the insecure age in which we live? Yeah,

of course. Fear is a potent motivator. I think it is so crucial

to note that allowing the Government to do bulk surveillance, which is

what this Bill allows, it makes it harder to find people plotting

terrorist attacks than when you are focussed on the specific individuals

and concentrating on them, when you have reason to believe they are

engaged in a terrorist attack, that bulk surveillance makes it more

difficult, not more easy, not easier for the Government to break those

plots up. So, it's a big broad brush hammer, to crack a nut? You have to

wonder if it makes it more difficult, why they are spending all

this money doing it. It is perhaps that they are not as smart... I was

sceptical about this. I went into this as an independent person with a

fresh pair of eyes. And what I saw, I got GCHQ to talk me through

examples of how did bulk collection produced disruption of a major

terrorist attack. They gave me six. People can look at them. I hope

other people will have a chance to question GCHQ, as I did, to look at

the contemporaneous intelligence reports. I wonder, the authorities

seem to be behind the renegades all the time and every time you put a

new piece of legislation out, someone devises some special hacking

ability to get round everything. Are you worried about whether this is

going to work at all? Well, I think - as far as what Mr Anderson said,

if you go into the GCHQ's offices and they show you what they want you

to see, they can probably convince you of anything they want you to

know. What surveillance experts have said, people who have worked in

these agencies have said, mass surveillance makes it harder. Every

tyrant in the world is on the world for surveillance technology, not

because they want to stop terrorism, but the more you know about your

population, the more power you have over it. That is the reason that

governments have always saw mass, broad surveillance. It is a really

important point to know. Thank you. As work on the Goddard Inquiry into

historical child abuse in England and Wales continues, a report

by Newsnight and See Hear can for the first time name the perpetrator

of horrific abuse carried out at a London school for deaf children

over three decades. The abuser was allowed to prey

on the school's pupils even after he was convicted of

indecently assaulting two of them, and barred by the Department for

Education from being a proprietor His victims, who fought

and failed to win justice, Apologies, we had planned to bring

you a report on the history and successive UK grime music. We will

have it for you later this week. Good night.