:00:12. > :00:19.Thanks to Edward Snowden, America's cyber spy turned later we know US
:00:20. > :00:25.intelligence agencies that by the British secretly monitor electronic
:00:26. > :00:27.communications on of the world. In Britain his revelations prompted a
:00:28. > :00:32.ferocious argument between self-styled spenders -- defenders of
:00:33. > :00:37.liberty and pillars of the security establishment. My guest is a mark on
:00:38. > :00:43.Rifkind, chairman of the UK Parliament's intelligence and
:00:44. > :00:46.security committee. Is this security stage a potential threat to those it
:00:47. > :01:20.is supposed to protect? Welcome to the programme. When those
:01:21. > :01:23.revelations appeared in the Guardian newspaper based upon leaks from
:01:24. > :01:27.Edward Snowden, all about the pervasive electronic surveillance
:01:28. > :01:35.won by US intelligence backed by British intelligence as well, were
:01:36. > :01:39.you surprised? First of all, we have intelligence agencies in Britain,
:01:40. > :01:43.Russia, Germany, France, have intelligence agencies to do
:01:44. > :01:46.intelligence, get secret information others wouldn't wish you to see.
:01:47. > :01:50.Against that background one is not to be surprised the intelligence
:01:51. > :01:54.agencies are doing what we pay them for. Where you being told for the
:01:55. > :01:58.first time or did you know this incredibly extensive electronic
:01:59. > :02:02.eavesdropping, monitoring, intelligence was taking place? The
:02:03. > :02:06.technology is constantly changing. Our primary purpose as an
:02:07. > :02:11.intelligence oversight committee is to satisfy ourselves that Britain's
:02:12. > :02:14.intelligence agencies Bestival are keeping the law, secondly are
:02:15. > :02:17.behaving in a responsible and acceptable fashion, and thirdly
:02:18. > :02:23.helping protect the people of the United Kingdom and through our
:02:24. > :02:33.alliances of other countries. Those are your duties. The technical
:02:34. > :02:37.way in which they do it is not, we are not involved in the technical
:02:38. > :02:40.way. If you are asking me, did we know that very large amounts of
:02:41. > :02:44.information can be processed by modern computers and in order for
:02:45. > :02:49.them to select the various needles in a haystack that might point you
:02:50. > :02:55.towards terrorists or serious, Norse, of course we were aware of
:02:56. > :02:58.that. If I may say so you are a lawyer and a man who has a renowned
:02:59. > :03:03.reputation for passing his words very carefully. You just said we
:03:04. > :03:07.knew they could do that. They have the capability, but did you know
:03:08. > :03:11.they were actually doing it as a result hundreds millions of citizens
:03:12. > :03:15.around the world were in effect having their communications
:03:16. > :03:22.monitored by the National Security agency in the United States, and by
:03:23. > :03:27.GCHQ in the UK? I am perfectly happy to say while we did not address the
:03:28. > :03:31.technical way in which it was done, or the precise technology evolves,
:03:32. > :03:35.we were certainly aware, as were quite a number of people, that it is
:03:36. > :03:39.possible with modern technology and if it is possible the likelihood
:03:40. > :03:45.intelligence agencies carry out what is for them their duty, to use the
:03:46. > :03:48.best possible technology to fight terrorists, prevent terrorist
:03:49. > :03:52.incidents or help the police catch terrorists is something has
:03:53. > :03:57.happened. Forgive me if I don't go beyond that. As a member of the
:03:58. > :04:00.intelligence and Security committee we received secret information. I am
:04:01. > :04:05.not at liberty to share with you the secret information we have received.
:04:06. > :04:11.But you are at liberty to decide and use your judgement to come to a few
:04:12. > :04:16.as to what the public needs to know that was a gritty agencies are
:04:17. > :04:22.doing? This is not the case, on this particular point, the public had
:04:23. > :04:27.every right to know in general the US and UK intelligence and spy
:04:28. > :04:42.agencies were now monitoring their communication. If there is where
:04:43. > :04:44.could monitor it to all systems of course there would be no
:04:45. > :04:55.justification for not disclosing all the information you are referring
:04:56. > :04:58.to. The problem is that you cannot disclose information to the British
:04:59. > :05:02.public without it becoming available to everyone else on the terrorists
:05:03. > :05:08.we are dealing with, the whole of the British public are the
:05:09. > :05:13.terrorists are pretty dumb and silly and foolish, some are incredibly
:05:14. > :05:17.smart. Modern terrorists, because the problem is global terrorism, had
:05:18. > :05:21.a global terrorists communicate? Globally, which means e-mails, phone
:05:22. > :05:25.communication, social messaging and all the other options available stop
:05:26. > :05:28.unless the intelligence agencies can beat them at their own game we do
:05:29. > :05:35.not discover the terrorists until after they have killed many innocent
:05:36. > :05:45.people. Do you believe is the leaks that came from Edward Snowden did
:05:46. > :05:52.anything to jeopardise the security of the British people or any
:05:53. > :05:55.security operation. We know is snowed in and stole tens of
:05:56. > :06:01.thousands of secret documents. We don't know how many. He has never
:06:02. > :06:08.disclosed that. He may have some have not yet arrived in the Guardian
:06:09. > :06:10.or the New York Times. I've no doubt many documents marks ago, if they
:06:11. > :06:15.did appear the public domain, wouldn't do any drastic damage. I am
:06:16. > :06:21.equally clear there are at of a lot that would do tremendous damage. The
:06:22. > :06:25.people at the moment you are deciding which of the stolen
:06:26. > :06:31.documents appear or a mixture of Edward Snowden and various newspaper
:06:32. > :06:37.editors. Neither of whom are qualified to make their judgement.
:06:38. > :06:40.When Andrew Parker said the other day they gave the fanatics the
:06:41. > :06:48.ability to evade intelligence agencies, and when the former head
:06:49. > :06:57.of GCHQ said this was the most catastrophic loss to British
:06:58. > :07:03.intelligence ever, I couldn't see one jot of specific evidence to back
:07:04. > :07:07.up those claims. Let me try and help you and those interested. There were
:07:08. > :07:10.allegations last week in the press I'm not commenting on whether they
:07:11. > :07:14.would chew or not, that the intelligence agencies are able to
:07:15. > :07:23.deal with encrypted material and find out what it really means. If
:07:24. > :07:30.these allegations were correct, every terrorist becoming aware of
:07:31. > :07:33.this immediately knows that material they are sending which they might
:07:34. > :07:38.think is secure because it is encrypted actually may still be able
:07:39. > :07:44.to be inspected. Maybe you are behind the curve on this.
:07:45. > :07:57.Specialists in court geography -- geography, the argument exposing
:07:58. > :08:03.these documents, a category can be hacked, the so-called back door.
:08:04. > :08:08.There are doubles -- many levels of encryption. He says the argument of
:08:09. > :08:14.exposing the documents helps the terrorists doesn't pass the laugh
:08:15. > :08:20.test. You say I am supposed to accept his view, at the same time
:08:21. > :08:26.you are quoting Andrew Parker who spent a lifetime dealing with
:08:27. > :08:29.intelligence. They are so close to the centres of power they have a
:08:30. > :08:35.clear vested interest in maintaining the secrecy that black power wants
:08:36. > :08:39.to retain. He is an independent expert and if he says you believe
:08:40. > :08:46.the terrorist stoked already assume even that they could messages can be
:08:47. > :08:52.hacked into view are joking. Terrorists know as do general public
:08:53. > :08:55.know some matters can be hacked into but they do not know what level of
:08:56. > :09:00.sophistication exist. If they are told and if they believe allegations
:09:01. > :09:02.that the levels of encryption that can be entered into a more
:09:03. > :09:10.sophisticated than the previously understood, inevitably that has
:09:11. > :09:13.consequences. The Guardian newspaper was very careful not to give that
:09:14. > :09:18.level of detail. Is a process by which independent experts reported
:09:19. > :09:25.and they sifted through everything republished to make sure they could
:09:26. > :09:27.not jeopardise security. This shows a level of naivete I find
:09:28. > :09:32.staggering. The idea that a newspaper editor in good faith and
:09:33. > :09:35.various other riders -- advisers should be up to judge all the
:09:36. > :09:39.material is not top-secret that somehow they are in the position to
:09:40. > :09:43.know whether terrorists or criminals would benefit from publishing it in
:09:44. > :09:49.the newspapers, if they believe that they are naive. This comes down to a
:09:50. > :09:54.question of trust. The public has to decide who they can trust when it
:09:55. > :09:58.comes to his documents, coming only rely upon the word of the
:09:59. > :10:01.intelligence agency chiefs who say this has to be kept secret, do they
:10:02. > :10:05.rely on the word of politicians such as yourself who to a certain extent
:10:06. > :10:10.or able to see top-secret and confidential information and act as
:10:11. > :10:15.tribunes of the people but not tell them what they have seen, or do they
:10:16. > :10:19.in the end has to rely on information gatherers such as the
:10:20. > :10:29.media who tell the public more than anybody else will about what is
:10:30. > :10:33.going on. There is a real public debate on the balance between
:10:34. > :10:38.security and privacy. The beginning of that debate is not Snowdon, it is
:10:39. > :10:42.in a dogma Chrissy, do we believe even in a democracy, free society,
:10:43. > :10:50.it is necessary in a modern world to have secrets about secret
:10:51. > :10:53.intelligence agencies. Secret intelligence agencies must remain
:10:54. > :11:05.able to have information that is secret. And not to put a branded
:11:06. > :11:10.secrecy over anything? There isn't a blanket of secrecy. 30s get this
:11:11. > :11:15.country didn't admit that MI6 existed, you didn't know where the
:11:16. > :11:19.pretty fun. Not only do they exist, they operate under a legal framework
:11:20. > :11:24.of oversight and constraints that does not exist in Russia or China.
:11:25. > :11:29.One of the great ironies that Mr Snowden in the name of freedom,
:11:30. > :11:34.Festa goes to China and then he goes to Russia. In both these countries
:11:35. > :11:40.the intelligence agencies they have are there primarily, I have got to
:11:41. > :11:43.make this point, are there to suppress political dissent, prevent
:11:44. > :11:47.what we would call legitimate opposition to government. But they
:11:48. > :11:51.don't have any oversight system and I would response the same way in the
:11:52. > :11:57.Western democracies hold ourselves to a higher standard. That is what
:11:58. > :12:02.our politicians do. That is the point I am making. We not only have
:12:03. > :12:08.ministerial accountability which people might say that is not good
:12:09. > :12:11.enough, we have the intelligence security which are all party,
:12:12. > :12:18.bipartisan, no party divided the committee, I just think my own
:12:19. > :12:20.views, on behalf of nine members of parliament, Labour, Conservative,
:12:21. > :12:24.Liberal Democrat, in addition to that we have judges who are
:12:25. > :12:29.intelligence commissioners who are able to scrutinise every warrant the
:12:30. > :12:33.Secretary of State signs to make sure it was done properly and for
:12:34. > :12:38.the right person and we are used for which it was intended. None of these
:12:39. > :12:41.safeguards exist in authoritarian societies and it is against that
:12:42. > :12:46.background your initial question about trust, what is the level of
:12:47. > :12:51.trust has to take into account we are a democratic society, where
:12:52. > :12:54.newspapers do indeed report allegations of alleged abuse by
:12:55. > :13:02.intelligence agencies in the way they don't do in Moscow or Beijing.
:13:03. > :13:05.We know for a fact in the past hour and British intelligence services
:13:06. > :13:13.have abuse their powers. They have used their powers to so veiled
:13:14. > :13:17.political movements which was... I'm going back to the 1980s. Much more
:13:18. > :13:23.recently we have had in the United States I am loosely lumping the UK
:13:24. > :13:30.and the United States together, a director of intelligence and the
:13:31. > :13:35.United States, Congress he was not surveilling... He told a lie. We now
:13:36. > :13:46.know that top officials in intelligence lies. Politicians as
:13:47. > :13:50.well. Politicians are sometimes very strong vested interest in
:13:51. > :13:55.maintaining the status quo. Jack Straw, the Labour Party, senior
:13:56. > :13:59.figure, he was Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, he has said he
:14:00. > :14:07.now knows because the intelligence services have said so, he was
:14:08. > :14:11.monitored, spied upon by the intelligence services, his own
:14:12. > :14:14.family was investigated, his sexual proclivities were investigated, and
:14:15. > :14:18.he says he finds that neither surprising nor shocking. We need
:14:19. > :14:26.politicians who would find that both surprising and shocking and
:14:27. > :14:47.unacceptable. I am interested at all the examples you have given given
:14:48. > :14:50.were before legislation was introduced for the first time giving
:14:51. > :14:54.statutory control over our intelligence agencies. Until the
:14:55. > :14:57.1990s, 1990s, until then, the intelligence agencies operated under
:14:58. > :15:13.authority from the Secretary of State. There was no legal basis on
:15:14. > :15:17.which they operated. Operated. Now there is an act of Parliament which
:15:18. > :15:21.says what the law is is to what they can do, the authority they require
:15:22. > :15:24.to proceed, and when they will be committing a criminal offence if
:15:25. > :15:26.they do not go by that. Since then judicial commissioners,
:15:27. > :15:30.commissioners, and other commissions have been established in the past 20
:15:31. > :15:33.or 30 years. Since the events you mention. I bet you cannot give a
:15:34. > :15:36.single example since then of political interference in the United
:15:37. > :15:39.Kingdom interfering with Ordinariate British citizens going about their
:15:40. > :15:41.business because of their alleged political views or other
:15:42. > :15:45.proclivities. There may have been abuses in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s
:15:46. > :15:48.when there were no legal frameworks. What I can point to, and this comes
:15:49. > :15:52.from politicians on your own site, like David Davis, saying that that
:15:53. > :15:56.the legislation as it stands, as you say it was passed in the 1990s,
:15:57. > :15:58.1990s, he says that it is incapable of protecting citizens from this new
:15:59. > :16:05.brand of pervasive digital surveillance. I have read what he
:16:06. > :16:08.has said and what he speaks about. The Intelligence and Security
:16:09. > :16:13.Committee which I chair has had its powers, powers, its budget, its
:16:14. > :16:23.resources doubled... Your budget is over ?1 million. For years it was
:16:24. > :16:27.six or ?700,000. A spit in the bucket, if I may say so compared
:16:28. > :16:30.with the task that that faces you in monitoring the fast changing world
:16:31. > :16:38.of electronic and digital surveillance. Apart from the United
:16:39. > :16:41.States, which is in a league of its own, we have more resources and
:16:42. > :16:51.manpower dealing with intelligence agencies than any other country in
:16:52. > :16:55.the world. Secondly, in the last year, Parliament has agreed that
:16:56. > :16:58.that for the first time in history, we will have the power to require
:16:59. > :17:02.the intelligence agencies to provide as with the information we need. Up
:17:03. > :17:04.until now it has been voluntary on their part. Now they are required.
:17:05. > :17:08.Only the Prime Minister and Secretary of State can stop us and
:17:09. > :17:11.they have to justify it, it would have to be exceptional
:17:12. > :17:13.circumstances. For the first time Parliament has given the
:17:14. > :17:20.intelligence committee oversight of the intelligence operation
:17:21. > :17:23.committees. In the last couple of weeks, weeks, our staff, who are not
:17:24. > :17:26.employed by the intelligence agencies, agencies, have got into
:17:27. > :17:29.the intelligence agencies and have had access to some of their most
:17:30. > :17:33.secret files to ensure that when we are carrying out investigations we
:17:34. > :17:43.will see not just what the agencies choose to show us but what we deem
:17:44. > :17:46.to be relevant to our enquiry. It has never happened before. Never
:17:47. > :18:01.before have they had people not their own stuff going into their
:18:02. > :18:04.offices and seeing their files. In a few weeks will have the first ever
:18:05. > :18:07.public session of taking evidence from the intelligence agencies, the
:18:08. > :18:10.heads of MI6, MI5, GCHQ, will be taking evidence from the committee.
:18:11. > :18:14.A couple of quick questions. Before we end this phase, has what we have
:18:15. > :18:18.learned from Edward Snowden in any way changed the degree of trust you
:18:19. > :18:27.are prepared to put in the intelligence services? No. Not at
:18:28. > :18:30.all? I will give you a quick answer. The allegations in this country was
:18:31. > :18:33.that the GCHQ was circumventing the law by using the NSA rather than
:18:34. > :18:38.going through a British legal procedure. It was investigation we
:18:39. > :18:45.found out it was an unjustified allegation. It is whether it is the
:18:46. > :18:49.law itself can be usefully looked at from time to time to see whether it
:18:50. > :18:54.is keeping up to date with modern technology. The intelligent security
:18:55. > :18:58.committee has said publicly that is part of the Work Programme we are
:18:59. > :19:04.looking and will continue to look at the legal basis under which the
:19:05. > :19:06.agencies operate. There is the difference between the agencies
:19:07. > :19:10.acting legally and with full integrity under the law they have
:19:11. > :19:14.been told as law and whether that law itself can be looked at to see
:19:15. > :19:19.whether improvements may be needed. A final point, point, will there be,
:19:20. > :19:26.as a result of what we have learnt, new and tougher legislation in this
:19:27. > :19:30.area to ensure tighter oversight? That is for the government, not my
:19:31. > :19:35.committee. Do you believe there is now a need for new legislation? We
:19:36. > :19:45.are going to see whether that might be... I want to know your personal
:19:46. > :19:52.opinion. I'm sorry, until we carry out the work I do not tell you that.
:19:53. > :19:55.You were very confident of the way in which Britain is still seen
:19:56. > :20:01.around the world as a paragon of creed and transparency... Those were
:20:02. > :20:04.your words. As said as a matter of fact oversight structures and powers
:20:05. > :20:11.are broadly similar to the United States and more substantial than any
:20:12. > :20:13.other country in the world. In the course of these revelations some
:20:14. > :20:17.specific detail came out about surveillance of foreign nations by
:20:18. > :20:26.the US and the UK. GCHQ was behind spying on the Turkish finance and is
:20:27. > :20:29.to in preparation free G20 meeting. The Turkish Prime Minister said that
:20:30. > :20:32.it is going to be scandalous to the United Kingdom at a time when
:20:33. > :20:35.international cooperation, more than ever, depends on mutual trust. These
:20:36. > :20:41.revelations have been damaging for Britain's international standing. I
:20:42. > :20:44.would point out that Turkey has very impressive intelligence agencies.
:20:45. > :20:52.You must come during conclusion whether these occasionally spy on
:20:53. > :20:57.some of their neighbours. What do you think? I am going to continue
:20:58. > :21:07.the thought about Turkey by switching to Syria. One key area is
:21:08. > :21:21.Syria. You sit on the Security intelligence committee. You listen
:21:22. > :21:26.closely to the debate about Syria. You participate in it. You have
:21:27. > :21:29.called for the arming of the Syrian rebels and for military intervention
:21:30. > :21:34.during that some discussion in Washington and London. London. Do
:21:35. > :21:37.you know except, as we see things unfold in Syria, both of those
:21:38. > :21:40.things military intervention and proactive arming of the rebels would
:21:41. > :21:44.have been a mistake? I do not. The circumstances are different to what
:21:45. > :21:47.they were 1.5 years ago. One of the reasons I came to the idea that
:21:48. > :21:50.military assistance was essential was because one saw the jihadi
:21:51. > :21:53.terrorists becoming more and more powerful. This last summer you are
:21:54. > :22:00.still arguing for arming the rebels... Precisely. They are
:22:01. > :22:04.becoming more and more influential. The Free Syrian Army said the
:22:05. > :22:12.Islamist are still taking over and you still want to send arms. The
:22:13. > :22:16.Free Syrian Army did not say that. This point I'm seeking to put across
:22:17. > :22:19.to you is that if you want a moderate secular opposition to
:22:20. > :22:22.become the future government of Syria, then we are in an impossible
:22:23. > :22:25.situation that has become worse where the Assad regime has all the
:22:26. > :22:28.weapons it could want from Russia and Iran and the jihadi terrorists
:22:29. > :22:35.are are getting from their sympathisers in in parts of the
:22:36. > :22:39.world. He said soon there would be no FSA, the Islamic groups a
:22:40. > :22:51.takeover. The change has been in that direction. You now saying
:22:52. > :23:01.saying it is too late? That your previous stance was the right and
:23:02. > :23:05.just thing to do cannot now happen. I am saying that the war in Syria
:23:06. > :23:17.will only come to an end when both sides know they cannot win
:23:18. > :23:21.militarily. Assad because the weapons he has been getting from
:23:22. > :23:25.Iran and Russia and because the help eager has polite has believed he has
:23:26. > :23:28.been been on a roll. He thinks he can win militarily. I think it is is
:23:29. > :23:31.important that the modern Syrian opposition opposition be given the
:23:32. > :23:38.tools with which which to defend their communities and and force
:23:39. > :23:42.Assad to the negotiating table. Table. Given the intelligence
:23:43. > :23:45.estimates we hear and the head of MI5 in the UK said recently hundreds
:23:46. > :23:49.of of fighters, he believes, areleaving to fight in the Syria,
:23:50. > :23:56.and they represent a real threat to Britain. You still think even in
:23:57. > :23:59.that context with that radicalisation that sending arms to
:24:00. > :24:07.Syria is still a good idea. You cannot cannot guarantee where those
:24:08. > :24:15.arms will end up. The people who do not have decent arms are the Syrian
:24:16. > :24:18.moderate opposition. The idea that if if you provide them with the
:24:19. > :24:22.equipment they need they will hand them over to their sworn enemies,
:24:23. > :24:34.the the jihadi terrorists, who are massively massively over, is quite
:24:35. > :24:41.unrealistic. . Thank you very much indeed.