|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 321-i House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
TERRORISM AND OTHER HOME OFFICE ISSUES
Tuesday 8 February 2005 RT HON CHARLES CLARKE MP Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 88
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday 8 February 2005 Members present Mr John Denham, in the Chair Mr James Clappison Mrs Claire Curtis-Thomas Mrs Janet Dean Mr Damian Green Mr Gwyn Prosser Mr Marsha Singh Mr John Taylor David Winnick ________________ Witness: Rt Hon Charles Clarke, a Member of the House, Secretary of State for the Home Department, examined. Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon, Home Secretary. Mr Clarke: Good afternoon. Q2 Chairman: Welcome to the Committee. It is the first time you have been in front of us and I think the first of the Select Committees of the House of Commons that you have given evidence to. A warm welcome to you, thank you for giving us a significant amount of your time. As you know, we want to talk primarily about terrorism and related issues but I hope we will also be able to pick up on yesterday's announcement and some of the other areas where the Committee has been interested over the last year. Could I start with a few questions about terrorism issues. Could I just ask a straightforward question: in your own judgment, has the terrorist threat to the United Kingdom increased or diminished since the terrorist outrage in Madrid just about a year ago? Mr Clarke: On the basis of the evidence that I have seen, Chairman, I would say that it is about the same. Certainly there has not been a significant diminution. It is the case that we are aware of a significant number of individuals and organisations which seek to prosecute acts against this country. Q3 Chairman: Would you agree with my view that a lot of the public debate in this country about the terrorism threat is quite polarised at the moment with some people taking the view that you have just expressed that we face quite a serious terrorist threat and others expressing a great deal of scepticism? Do you think that is the case and have you any explanation as to why public opinion in this country should be so polarised on the issue whereas in many other countries there seems to be a great degree of consensus? Mr Clarke: I think it is the case. I think it is the case for two or three reasons. One reason is that individual liberty and the rule of law has always been central to the nature and structure of the democratic society in which we all live in a way which is not the case in a large number of other countries in the world. It is something of which we should rightly be very proud. That means that when there is any threat which gives rise to any consideration that there should be any inhibition of those liberties, people are naturally concerned at that fact. Even if you go through the European Union there is a significant number of countries in the EU which do not have anything like that long history and even in your and my living memory have lived under regimes of both the right and the so-called left, of which this was not the case. That is one important reason. I think a second important reason is that the events around the weapons of mass destruction issue in Iraq have led to a scepticism about the quality of intelligence on important matters. I do not say that is justified, in fact I think it is not justified, but there is no doubt that the great range of issues around that have given rise to scepticism - I use the word in its genuine sense, doubt not necessarily disbelief - about what one can or cannot believe about security assessments. There are other lower level factors in which I think the deep cultural and political factor in the first place and, secondly, the particular events around WMD have been particular factors. For me, and I am glad you referred to it just now, there is the need for a national debate about these issues. It places the onus certainly on me but also all of us to find ways of debating this question in an informed way without either giving rise to unnecessary fears or revealing too much about what we know and how we know about the existence of these threats. I am actively working at this moment on thinking how we can advance such a discussion. Q4 Chairman: I wonder if you could share with the Committee a little bit more about this national debate. Obviously it is unhealthy, as you imply, to have a debate where there are those who feel they have to protect civil liberties and also argue there is not a terrorist threat and those who argue we need to take strong measures and use the increased threat of terrorism. It would be very useful to have this debate if there was a consensus about the level of terrorist threat. Given the problems we have got, what sort of intelligence information or other types of information do you anticipate being able to put into the public debate, into the public realm, to enable that national debate and that national consensus to be more informed? Mr Clarke: I am not able to answer that question fully at the moment because, as I said a second ago, I am very actively considering it, but I think what can be brought into the public arena is, firstly, a general description of the nature of the terrorist organisations which are seeking to threaten us. Secondly, a general description of the modus operandi which some of these organisations have adopted, including their own so-called justifications for their acts and the way in which they proceed, with specific examples of the way in which they have proceeded over the recent period outside this country and in what variety of different ways. Thirdly, some more specific picture, at least in principle and perhaps fictionalised, of the way in which a particular group would work to set about putting its threat into effect. The more that cases can be brought to the courts, and one of my general responses to this is that we need to bring as many cases as we conceivably can to the courts, then the court process and the evidence in front of the public court will give evidence of the way in which people operate in these ways and will help us do it. I think it is by presenting that kind of situation in the round that we have got the best way of illustrating the situation that we address. If I may say so, I thought you put it very well. I think everybody should accept, firstly, that there is a threat and, secondly, that we have to protect our fundamental liberties. The fact is, as we both accept, then everybody will have their slightly different take on how to deal with that. I think those who say there is no threat are simply living in a dream world which simply is no reality and I certainly cannot live in that world and I think most Members of Parliament could not live in that world. The question is what is the nature of it and that is why this debate is so important. Q5 Chairman: To press you a bit further. If I could put my cards on the table, I am one of those who believe that we will see more events like the one in Madrid before we are through this crisis, to put it mildly. Do you think the current level of public and media scepticism about the threat is actually hampering our ability as a society to tackle terrorism effectively? Mr Clarke: I do. I gave a speech to the Parliamentary Press Gallery shortly after the events of 9/11 in 2001 at which I said it was a source of sadness to me that some did not understand that the threat which the al-Qaeda group were posing was not simply to the Twin Towers or to others, it was to the very fundamentals of our democracy, they were seeking to bring down democratic structures, for example not to permit women to have any role in society, to attack any idea of freedom of religious worship and belief, to attack our rule of law in every respect, to attack our free economic systems. In my opinion, all those who are under threat from that attack, whether in the media, which of course could not exist under an al-Qaeda world, or in the legal world, which could not exist under an al-Qaeda world, or Parliament, which could not exist under an al-Qaeda world, ought to unite to deal with this threat. I felt sometimes that a little too much of the debate was a rather interesting balance between these chaps from al-Qaeda on the one hand and President Bush on the other as a bit of a call or mission to give both of them a fair crack. That is now how I feel, I think that these people are about fundamentally destroying everything which certainly you and I, Chairman, throughout our political lives have fought for, and I think it is actually true most Members of Parliament have fought for extending those liberties in various ways. It is an old phrase, but I think it to be true, that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance and it is necessary for us, therefore, to be vigilant against those who seek to destroy those liberties. Q6 Mr Taylor: Home Secretary, I do not want to press you into an area where you are unwilling to go, but on this matter of threat, where I totally subscribe to what you have just been saying, can you tell the Committee whether it is within your knowledge that certain intended attacks have actually been thwarted? Mr Clarke: Yes, I can. Mr Taylor: Thank you. Q7 David Winnick: Home Secretary, just two brief questions at this stage. In your view, why should anyone take the opinion that what happened in Madrid and Istanbul is such that it is unlikely to happen in the near future in Britain? Mr Clarke: The only basis of that belief is confidence in the quality of our own security services in comparison with those in other countries. Certainly in principle we are at least as much at threat as people in Madrid or Istanbul or, indeed, in Bali or in other parts of the world. The thing which has most protected us has been the quality of our security services and the intelligence that we have. Others, not I, have used very strong language about the so-called inevitability of the success of some attack in this country. I actually do not use the word "inevitable", I do not think it is right, I think we can avoid it. The fact is it is the quality of where we are now and our ability to protect ourselves which means that we have not had events here rather than the fact that nobody is seeking to target us. Q8 David Winnick: Can I ask you your views on what Lord Hoffmann said - I have it in front of me and obviously you have read it - giving his own judgment apart from his fellow Law Lords: "The real threat to the life of the nation in the sense of the people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these", which we know about, "That is a true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give terrorists such a victory." What is your comment on that? Mr Clarke: I do not agree with Lord Hoffmann when he says that the kinds of measures I was proposing, the control orders or whatever it may be, are a greater threat to the liberties of this country than the activities of the terrorist organisations, I simply do not accept his analysis. In passing, Mr Winnick, perhaps I could observe that his analysis was shared only by himself amongst the nine Law Lords. It was his own view and the judgment of Lord Bingham and the majority group of Law Lords who decided as they did was not to identify with the sentiments expressed by Lord Hoffmann but to look at the cases, as they rightly should, on their particular merits. I do not share his view. I do share the view which he and others would express that our fundamental ambition has to be to secure a society based on freedoms and liberties, but I then say if we are going to do that we have to defend ourselves against those who seek to destroy those liberties. Q9 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Home Secretary, you said a few moments ago that it was your desire to bring cases to court. Which specific court and under what sort of terms? Mr Clarke: Ideally, cases should be brought to the regular court for offences set out in the anti-terrorism legislation that we have. I am prepared to look at further offences, as some have suggested, that we could deal with in that context. It is undoubtedly the best way to secure defence of our liberties in the way that I have described. If an individual or group of individuals are convicted in court on the basis of evidence which can be presented in court of breaches of the anti-terrorist law that is the way for it to be done. For the avoidance of doubt, Mrs Curtis-Thomas, I believe that it would be best if every single case went via that route, I do not see any advantage in going via another route if you can achieve it by that route, but I also believe that in presenting evidence in court we have to be conscious that there are many organisations who are watching very carefully and drawing conclusions both about the behaviour of individuals within their own organisations and about the methods that are used by security to defend our country against those threats, which may mean it is necessary to proceed to a different form of court, such as the SIAC approach, on the basis of the Home Secretary's recommendation on the basis of information which cannot be disclosed in open court. I think that is necessary in certain circumstances, as I have said. For the avoidance of any doubt on my part, my strong preference on every occasion would be to bring the case into open court on the basis of the counter-terrorism legislation which is on the statute book or any law that we might bring, but I have to be realistic and know that there are cases - and there are - where we have not been able to operate in that way. Q10 Chairman: We will come to your proposals in a moment, Home Secretary. We were told in a recent evidence session that there were around 70 cases finding their way through the system to be tried in the courts as a result of arrests under the Terrorism Act and similar acts, excluding immigration offences and things of that sort. Do you have any idea when those cases will begin to come to court because that will begin to provide the background information that you were saying you needed for the debate? Mr Clarke: I have not got an idea which I can give to the Committee, although if it would be helpful I would be happy to write to the Committee setting out my best knowledge of what I can give the Committee on those cases and when they might come. They are a number of different cases, as you imply in the question, and they are proceeding on different timescales. The only general response I can give is that it is my very strong desire, for the reasons implied in your first question, Chairman, that this happens as soon as possible because the best evidence that we can get into the public arena is evidence of what has actually happened through the court process. Q11 Chairman: A final question from me at this stage, Home Secretary. You have not been able to deal with British citizens through Belmarsh-type detentions, you have not had available to you the sort of control orders you now say are necessary. Being honest, has that actually restricted the Government's effectiveness in the fight against terrorism over the last two or three years when you have not had those tools available to deal with British citizens? Mr Clarke: To some extent, yes. To quantify beyond that rather loose phrase, "to some extent", is difficult, but to some extent, yes. What happened, as you will recall, is that following 9/11 the Government decided at that time to use the immigration legislation to deal with the threat as perceived at that time from foreign nationals, which is why we have ended up in the state of affairs that we have, but since 9/11 with the massive focus there has been worldwide on the range of different organisations which provide these threats, there are British citizens who are involved in the process. I think that it is right that we should be able to take action in relation to those and that there has been an extent to which our inability to deal with that has been inhibited by the current state of the law. However, one of the reasons why I propose the changes I do is that getting to a proportionate set of responses rather than simply detention on the one hand or a very loose situation, perhaps warrants to intercept phones, on the other, is not a choice which is a very good choice to deal with the different levels of threat that come from different levels of people. That is why I think a gradation of control orders is a good way to address this. Q12 Mr Prosser: Home secretary, you have been discussing with the Chairman the scepticism which has been in existence with regard to people's belief or non-belief in the degree of the threat. Perhaps in this place that is very apparent. In my view, most people accept that there is a threat and on that basis are willing to go along reluctantly with some of the very extreme measures being taken. With that background, how do you explain to them the decision to suddenly release Detainee C from Belmarsh whereby in the recent past the view was that there was very substantial in-depth intelligence supporting the fact that he was linked to a terrorist organisation and had the ability to take part in such organisations, and then on the next day he is released without any control at all? How can I explain to the people who have been supporting these strict measures that there is not a similar flaw, perhaps, or a similar difficulty in the evidence which supports the other detainees at Belmarsh? Mr Clarke: The explanation I would give to your constituents or others who raise this with you is as follows: the only basis upon which we can establish strict measures, the only basis upon which Parliament would be ready to establish strict measures, is if Parliament is convinced that every case where those strict measures are applied is properly reviewed and constantly reviewed to look at the consistent level of threat. That it is not simply a question of throwing somebody in detention and throwing away the key, but the matter is then looked at in a very serious way. My predecessor, David Blunkett, gave the assurance to Parliament that he would keep all of the cases at Belmarsh under review and, of course, that is what I will do too. That is what happened in the case of C. The revocation of the certificate does not mean that the individual no longer poses a threat or did not previously pose a threat, it means that the threat has changed and diminished and that certification can no longer be justified in that particular case, and that is what happened. This particular individual at the time of his certification was a leading UK member of a proscribed Egyptian terrorist group and prior to his detention he was active on their behalf in a variety of countries. He had an extensive network of associates both in the UK and overseas. However, many of the activities of his associates have now been disrupted and many have been detained and they have not been as active as they previously were. This has all lessened the potential for him to re-engage in his previous activities and that is why, on advice, I took the decision that I did. My fundamental defence, Mr Prosser, when your constituents put that to you is to say we do need these powers but we can only secure Parliament's agreement to these powers if we will consistently and continually review their use to ensure that they do not turn into abuse. Q13 Mr Prosser: I want to move now to the position of people who perhaps under normal circumstances we would want to deport back to their home countries or elsewhere but we cannot because of the regimes in which they might find themselves. Do you not think that it would have been a far better state of affairs if the contact that you are now making, as we have been led to believe, with foreign countries, trying to gain assurances and security for people's safety when they go back to those countries, if those discussions and that pressure had been applied before we had taken these extreme measures at Belmarsh of detention without trial? Mr Clarke: Obviously the sooner they could have happened the better and I am very glad that Baroness Symons, as Foreign Office Minister with responsibility in these areas, has now been able to visit all of the governments of the countries concerned to discuss with them our concerns. We will be discussing directly with those governments how we can take it further forward. The fact is we have had previous conversations with those governments, not always successfully, so the fact is that it would have been better to try earlier and harder but it would not be true that we did not try; we did try but not successfully. Whether we will succeed in this case, I do not know. I hope we will because I think there is a reasonably positive environment and climate for making change in these areas and because I agree with the fundamental point you made that it would be best if we were able to address these issues properly. I cannot hide from you that there are serious issues which the British courts will take into consideration when looking at the countries with which we are concerned about the concerns about human rights in those countries which will be matters in court which will be considered in those cases. That said, I believe that with goodwill we can make progress in this and that is what we are seeking to do. Q14 Mr Prosser: If we come to a position where the Government is assured that a particular country will give safe refuge to a particular prisoner or a particular category of people, how will that be underwritten? What level of assurance would you require and, more importantly perhaps, would there be any means of monitoring and checking that that individual remains a free person? Mr Clarke: The question of how such an agreement was monitored would be an important part of the agreement itself, so it would be part of the process. It is not just a question of satisfying me, it is a question of me being able to be confident that we can satisfy the British courts that this is an appropriate step to take. It is both myself and the Government more generally, but also the British courts, who have to be satisfied. I think you are absolutely right to say that one of the conditions which anybody would look at in these circumstances is a coherent monitoring regime. Q15 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Home Secretary, if intercept evidence is accepted in other countries where there are robust court systems and democratic accountability then why not here? Mr Clarke: Essentially because our legal system is entirely different. The fact is the whole nature of the judicial system, for example in France or Spain or wherever, is entirely different from our regime first and foremost, so the role of judges, and in particular juge d'instruction, in their systems is different from ours. Secondly, the level of collaboration between law enforcement and intelligence in this country is uniquely strong. We have focused, in my opinion rightly, on intelligence as the centre of the way in which we work to identify some of these areas. By the way, not only in relation to counter-terrorism but when you look at serious and organised crime, for example people trafficking and drugs, it is intelligence which is our key means of being able to break into them. I think we have a very high level of co-operation, much higher than is the case with other countries. I believe that many other foreign law enforcement agencies are very impressed with our level of co-operation. Thirdly, even if you take all of that into account it remains the fact that in many of these issues intelligence is brought not through intercept, not through phone tapping or whatever, but by the existence of individuals within the organisations we are talking about who are giving information about what is taking place, and by definition that key intelligence could not be dealt with in court without placing those particular individuals at risk. That is one of the reasons why the review that was conducted came to the view that using intercept would not give us a significant improvement in our ability to get convictions. All that said, I do think that it would not be right to rule out forever using intercept as evidence and particularly I will look very carefully at the changing technologies involved, because that was one of the concerns as to how the technologies are moving to be able to deal with this. I am aware that a large number of serious people in the country think that this is something we should look at and I am prepared to continue looking at it, but the decision I came to was because it seemed to me on the balance of judgment when I looked at it then that is where we should be. Q16 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Has intercept evidence been crucial in the cases that we see in Belmarsh? Has it played a significant role in their consideration? Mr Clarke: I am not in a position to give an answer to that question precisely for the reasons that they are under the regime that they are. I am not in a position to state directly what forms of intelligence were important in relation to each of those particular individuals. Q17 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Given that the Government has repeatedly said that prosecution would be their preferred route, would you be prepared to reconsider the use of intercept evidence if this was done in the context of other reforms? You mentioned earlier special courts and you made some reference to the French system and security cleared judges there. Your advice or your view on this, please. Mr Clarke: Firstly, I would be prepared and, in fact, am actively considering whether new offences in this area would help us deal with some of these matters better in open court along the lines that some have suggested. Q18 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Is that the extension to the anti-terrorism measures that you mentioned earlier on? Mr Clarke: That is the reference I was making earlier on. Second, speaking entirely personally and privately, as we are here, I am not an absolute fan of the adversarial system of British justice by comparison with some of the other systems that we have. I would be prepared in due course to look at some other system that could work in certain areas to move in this area. As you would know better than I from your own experience, any change in that area is absolutely enormous and would require a massive, massive shift and very wide consultation, so it is not something that can deal with the situation at this moment, but I would be prepared to look at that in the round. Certainly I accept the case, and in fact it was in the measures that I suggested, for judicial overview of the Home Secretary's decisions in this area through a SIAC type process to address the issues. In the context of that I would be prepared to look at other evidential issues, such as the intercept question, but I think it would require a pretty substantial assessment of all of those issues to get to that point. Q19 Chairman: The problem you have left yourself with, Home Secretary, is you said earlier and on many other occasions you would much prefer cases to come to court, but because you have not brought forward changes to court procedures, because you have ruled out intercept evidence, you have left yourself in a position where the public impression is you are going to sit down with the security services and decide with them whether somebody should be subject to a control order and only after that will it have any judicial process. Would it be more satisfactory if you had a proper process between you and the security services where somebody, the Director of Public Prosecutions or whoever, assessed the body of evidence and actually said, "Yes, this is a prosecutable case", or "This would be prosecutable if you brought intercept evidence into play", or "No, this is a case that cannot be prosecuted without jeopardising legitimate security interests" and, therefore, it would be appropriate for your control orders? Mr Clarke: I am not closed to looking at any system which (a) would give better quality decisions and (b) would give more reassurance about what might be seen as the untrammelled power of the Home Secretary. There are a number of things I would like to just put into consideration. Firstly, nobody, least of all me, has suggested an untrammelled power for the Home Secretary in this area. The judicial review process is there, and would be there in the proposals that we have got, would be tested and would allow issues to be tested in court. That is from the point of view of the individual. The second consideration I would like to put into the equation is that I do think that there is an issue of national security which is different from the issue of the rights of the individuals who are there. They are not the same thing. Judges, quite rightly, are concerned to preserve and defend the rights of individuals who are in their courts, to deal with them properly. They do not have the responsibility of making judgments on national security questions. It seems to me that somebody - I leave in the air who for a second - has to make a judgment about what is the national security issue that is there. That is different from the rights of citizen one, two, three, four or five - I deliberately avoid letters to avoid confusion with other cases. Somebody has to make a national security judgment and I contend that individual ought to be an elected politician answerable to the House of Commons, ie the Home Secretary or other senior government ministers in those circumstances. I think that is the right way to proceed. Of course, when the government minister makes that judgment, the Home Secretary in this case, he or she has to be properly advised and that is where I think on the processes that you have just described I am certainly prepared to be flexible about looking at how one can address some of those issues. Anything which took away from the key responsibility of an elected government minister to take the decision about where the national security interest lies would be a derogation of responsibility which would be mistaken. Q20 Chairman: Whilst saving for the moment the argument about national security interest, it would be better, would it not, if you could show that you had done everything you can to enable as many cases to be prosecuted as can be, even if not all of them can be, and, secondly, to have a procedure that would counter any suspicions that national security was being used as a substitute to having a decent body of evidence? Mr Clarke: I agree with both of those points. As far as the first is concerned, and I have said and I will repeat, I am absolutely ready to look at ways in which we can do better in getting cases to prosecution. If I criticise myself at all, which is very rare, I do so in my statement to the House for not sufficiently emphasising my commitment to that because it gave rise to some of the impressions you have just described. Secondly, I do think that it is important to put procedures in place which give confidence, as you say, that these issues are being properly considered in the round. I just want to make one other point. Do not believe that these issues are not very fully considered in the round, including with legal advice and proper assessments of what the position is there. Obviously the security issues are considered by the security services but also the legal issues, the prosecution issues and so on, are very, very fully considered. I would accept the injunction from the Committee that we ought to do more in that area and that is a perfectly fair point to be made, but I do not accept the implicit criticism, not so much in your question but in some of the public debate, that these issues are not very properly and roundly considered before the Home Secretary of the day makes a judgment. Q21 Chairman: To summarise where we have got to, Home Secretary, you are prepared to look at different and clearer processes between the initial advice and taking a decision to issue a control order, you are not at this stage prepared to, as it were, derogate the decision on the control order to another body. Mr Clarke: That is correct. Q22 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: You said earlier that you were looking to extend the anti-terrorism legislation and you also referred to the fact that there were 70 individuals who are awaiting trial against that particular piece of legislation. The extension that you are considering, how many individuals who we are not currently able to prosecute against the anti-terrorism legislation might be included in future prosecutions if we extend the anti-terrorism legislation as it currently stands? Mr Clarke: It is very difficult to give a true estimate of that. I think there is a case. Lord Carlile suggested some and there would be others in circulation of extension to the legislation which could make a difference in this area, which is why I am considering it. Q23 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Is it a small number, Home Secretary? Mr Clarke: I would say it is a very small number, yes. Q24 Mr Taylor: First of all, Home Secretary, you said a moment or two ago that you are not a great fan of the adversarial system and you are prepared to look at other ---- Mr Clarke: That was simply to provoke the Members of the Committee. Q25 Mr Taylor: You have provoked me favourably. It would be a massive change of culture, I put it to you, to move away from the adversarial system in the law courts. It might be a change in which I would support you from the backbenches, but you are going to have a lot of resistance from a lot of vested interests, are you not? Mr Clarke: Absolutely. I would not even be so nasty as to call them vested interests, I would call them principled lawyers, if that is not a contradiction in terms. Joking aside, the fact is that there are very genuine issues in any changes of this kind which are absolutely enormous and I would not venture down that path without going into very detailed consideration because, as you said, there are massive cultural changes involved and I do not think it would be very intelligent for me in an important though narrow area of law to try to bring about a change which undermined the whole basis of the legal system in this country. That is why my comment was a provocation rather than a response or an intervention. There are very serious issues here because the European Convention and so on has been manufactured in the context of many other different forms of legal system rather than our own and that is something we have to take into account as well. Q26 Mr Taylor: Not long ago in your evidence to this Committee, Home Secretary, you mentioned the person of Lord Carlile. You are probably aware of the fact that he has suggested, and I quote, a new offence of "acts preparatory to terrorism" upon which that point could be tried, a criminal trial could be brought on that offence. I am told that there is a similar offence in the French jurisdiction and has been for some time where, under examining, magistrates may detain a suspect for quite long periods as long as there is a valid case against them. Do you think there are any useful lessons for us to learn from that? Mr Clarke: I think there are and I do think we need to think about Lord Carlile's suggestion carefully, which is indeed what we are doing. I have been briefed on the comparison with France and it is the case that France has extensive counter-terrorism powers in place, primarily as a result of dealing with North African terrorism, and the French penal code has been amended on numerous occasions over the last 15/20 years to deal with terrorism offences. There, terrorist offences follow a special form of legal proceedings in which the nature of the investigation is centralised but a prosecution and trial under a sole jurisdiction is made up of specialised judges whose competence extends across the entire country. Obviously this is a different system from the type of system that we have in place here and would require a very substantial change. I think what I would say in summary on this is I do not think it is realistic for us to think about trying to tear up by the roots the fundamentals of our system and switching to another country's system; I do not think that would be the right way to go. I do think that it is perfectly feasible for us to look at extending different offences, such as the acts preparatory to terrorism offence, but I should say whatever we do in these areas does not deal with the Law Lords' judgment because the fact is that we have to renew the Part 4 powers by 10 March if we have not got other legislation in place, and by definition putting through legislation that even extended the anti-terrorist powers in this way would be a much longer process and would be something, I would have thought, for consideration in the next parliamentary session rather than this one, but we are actively looking at that. Q27 Chairman: You must be a little bit jealous of your French counterparts who can lock people up for four years without trial. Mr Clarke: Actually, I do not get any kind of excitement from that type of activity, Chairman. I met my French counterpart at the JHA meeting, the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers' meeting in Luxembourg last week. I do not think I do feel very jealous actually because I think the liberties we have got in our country are preferable to those in France, at the risk of being provocative yet again. Q28 David Winnick: On the control orders, Home Secretary, you are meeting the opposition, I read somewhere, on the 17th of this month, is that correct? Mr Clarke: That is right, yes. Q29 David Winnick: The meeting will be between you and your opposite numbers. Is the Prime Minister involved as well? Mr Clarke: I will tell you the history of this. Before I made my statement to the House of Commons last week or the week before, I decided to offer a briefing to the opposition parties at a time long before, so the night before I briefed the Conservative spokespeople both in the Commons and the Lords, and also the Liberal Democratic spokespeople both in the Commons and the Lords, to explain what we were doing. The reason I did that was I wanted them to have the chance to consider carefully what I was saying so that they were not bounced into a response of any kind. I offered a similar briefing to the Leader of the Opposition and he declined saying that he was happy for me to brief the Shadow Home Secretary. In questions subsequently the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister if he would meet and the Prime Minister, of course, agreed, as he rightly should have done, and that meeting has now been fixed for Friday the 17th. Also, since then the Leader of the Liberal Democrats has asked for a meeting which will also take place on Friday the 17th. The Prime Minister will conduct both of those meetings. I will be present at both of those meetings. I do not know what the rest of the cast will be for the meeting either on the Government side or on the Opposition side. I am glad both meetings are taking place. I do not think these matters are matters for party political badinage, they are serious issues which are there and I think it is perfectly appropriate for those meetings to take place. Q30 David Winnick: Thursday the 17th? Mr Clarke: No. I beg your pardon if I have got the date wrong. It is the Friday, I do not know the date. Q31 David Winnick: Not to worry. What do you feel at this stage of the possibility of reaching agreement with the two Opposition parties? Mr Clarke: I will tell you what I really feel about this. I feel that there is goodwill with the leadership of both the Opposition parties to try and find a way forward on this issue. I do not have a sense that either of them are trying to score party political points in this process; I certainly would deplore it if they did. I think there are some genuine doubts, firstly around intercept evidence and the issues that Mrs Curtis-Thomas was raising, and about some aspects of the role of the judiciary in the process, the points that the Chairman was making, and I hope that in discussion we can offer reassurances, but on the fundamentals of the need to have powers in place to deal with threats of national security I believe that there is a readiness to do that. There are some in the House who do not share that view - to be fair, on all sides of the House - but I do not think that extends to the frontbenches and I would be very disappointed if the assessment I am giving you now candidly proves to be wrong. Q32 David Winnick: You touched on the question of judicial matters, would you accept the core of the argument of many, indeed myself for that matter, who do accept that action is required in view of the threat, since I accept there is an acute threat from terrorism to our country and to our people, that the idea that you as Home Secretary, or whoever may hold your post in the future, can detain people so long as you can get the necessary order through the House of Commons or through Parliament as a whole is unacceptable, there must be a judicial process, and the Prime Minister on 2 February at last PMQs said: "It is our intention to have a judicial process". What sort of a judicial process do you have in mind? Mr Clarke: The one that I floated in the statement that I made to the House was judicial review of the decision of the Home Secretary as with the current SIAC process, so that would mean that the Home Secretary takes the decision that the individual concerned is then entitled to appeal that decision and there is then a set of hearings, either in closed or open session depending on the nature of the evidence, and SIAC decides to agree or not agree with the decision of the Home Secretary. I think that kind of process is certainly a very significant judicial part in the process and does give a very important check and balance against the untrammelled power of the Home Secretary, as I said. Others have suggested other ways of having judicial participation in the process other than the one I have described. As I implied in my answer to the Chairman, I am not inflexible about this, I am ready to look at ways of achieving this in order to get as much consensus as possible. My own personal sticking point is that there does need to be an individual, and I argue that it is the Government of the day, and in my case the Home Secretary, who has to take account of the national security situation and make decisions based on the national security of the country and that is not simply a matter which can be passed to anybody else. The Chairman correctly summed up my views in saying that I do not think that responsibility can be derogated elsewhere. Q33 David Winnick: But judicial review would be included? Mr Clarke: Yes. Q34 David Winnick: Which was not quite clear by any means when you made your original statement in the House. Mr Clarke: If that is the case that is my fault. Certainly I sought to make it clear and my wording in my statement did specifically state that we would have a SIAC type process involved in that, but no doubt I was less than clear in explaining it. I also think, by the way, it is very important to have parliamentary scrutiny of what is happening and have a regular process of parliamentary debate about what is happening in these areas, whether directly in Parliament or with the help of the Intelligence and Security Committee if that can assist in the process. Q35 David Winnick: What happened last time, Home Secretary, was we had the debates because it was necessary as part of the legislation which went through but it did not stop the Law Lords coming to the conclusion which they did. Am I not right, the only reason you are putting forward these new proposals is because of the Law Lords' decision? Mr Clarke: I would not say specifically the Law Lords' decision. I am not disputing your central thesis but I would say because of two Law Lords' perceptions which I think were true and which we had to address. Perception one was that there was an issue on the different set of regimes and treatments for foreign nationals and UK Nationals, and I think we were criticised for that in a way that was difficult not to acknowledge some truth in the criticism and therefore establish a regime. Secondly, the criticism that we were establishing a disproportionate situation, so if we had any level of doubt about an individual who we could not bring to court and prosecution, the only serious option was full scale detention even though a sanction less than full scale detention might well have been appropriate. The lack of proportionality I thought was a well made criticism by the Law Lords which we ought to deal with. Both of those criticisms, the discrimination between UK and non-UK citizens and the lack of proportionality, were substantive points with or without the Law Lords' judgment but what the Law Lords' judgment did was bring them absolutely to the forefront certainly of my personal attention and also that of the state in a way that meant in my opinion we had to seek to address them. Q36 David Winnick: With the exception of Lord Hoffmann it is true that the Law Lords, as you say, put great emphasis on the fact that there was a distinction between foreign nationals and UK citizens, and you have just commented on that, but would you accept that people who are opposed to foreign nationals being locked up without proper court decisions, being found guilty, would find it even more obnoxious if UK Nationals were subject to the same type of restrictions as you are proposing in the control orders? Mr Clarke: I do accept that and that is why I said in my statement, and I tried to be candid about it at the outset, that this did represent a significant increase in the powers of the state in relation to UK citizens but the only choices that seemed to me to exist were either not to extend those powers to UK citizens, in which case we could not deal with the discrimination argument as there were real issues of threat that were present, or to say that we would continue to maintain a distinction between how we dealt with foreign nationals and UK Nationals, which the Law Lords had been very clear they did not think we could do. Q37 David Winnick: Just one or two questions very briefly on the practical side of this. As regard those who would be virtually under house arrest, do you consider there would be many who would not be able to leave their actual place of abode? Mr Clarke: No, I do not. I have been careful not to use the phrase "house arrest" because there is a range of measures which have been talked about from not being able to use mobile phones to not being able to use the Internet to not receiving visitors, a whole range of different measures which can be used, to have satellite followed tagging and so on, a whole system of measures that can be used either individually or in combination. If we are talking at the upper level of use of those measures, I think we are talking about a very small number of people indeed, but they are dangerous people who we would be putting our security at risk by simply letting them go loose completely untrammelled. Q38 David Winnick: Home Secretary, you made much, as your predecessor did, that despite all the controversy over the previous restrictions which led to Belmarsh, et cetera, despite what was said at the time, it amounted to 17 and then less than that. Is there not a danger that if you are going to include UK Nationals who are considered by the security services to be a risk we are talking of much larger numbers? Mr Clarke: No. As you say, only 17 people and for those 17 it is obviously important, but nevertheless only 17 people involved in that particular approach. We are not talking about significantly larger numbers at the upper level of the control order. I need to come back to this proportionality point again. The fact is it is quite possible by using a range of control orders to restrain people's ability from being able to plot and plan terrorist activities without going to the point of deprivation of liberty, and I think that is a preferable thing to do if one can get to that position. We are not in that position today because we do not have the legal power to do that, so it is a case of either full detention or, as I say, perhaps a warrant to phone tap or something of that kind, something fairly low level. I think that the proportional aspect of where we are enables us to deal with the situation in a much more balanced way in getting this difficult relationship between national security and individual liberty on to a balanced footing. Q39 David Winnick: Is there a danger it could go over 100 in number? Mr Clarke: I think that is very unlikely. Q40 David Winnick: On the information and advice that you have received you now tell us that it is unlikely it would go over 100. Would you like to give any sort of figure? Obviously at this stage it would be speculation but would you like to give a number to us how many at the very most, if this goes through, UK Nationals combined with those who have no right of residence as permanent residents of the UK would be subject to these control orders? Mr Clarke: I am not going to give a number. By the way, the phrase I was using "not 100" was at the upper levels of control order in terms of deprivation of liberty. The Prime Minister used the phrase in a press conference, "a handful", and I think we are talking about a small number but I am not going to speculate beyond what you have put to me. David Winnick: I expected that you would say that, thank you very much. Q41 Mr Green: Home Secretary, the underlying ethical problem you face with all this is that if a Government removes some of the basic freedoms of its citizens without a full legal process then many people would feel that the terrorists are halfway to winning without even perpetrating an outrage, precisely because one of the things we all want to defend is those basic freedoms. In that context, I am sure you will have seen the Joint Committee on Human Rights' comments that "long-term derogations from human rights obligations have a corrosive effect on the culture of respect for human rights on which the effective protection of all rights depends". Will not these new control orders be likely to require a new derogation from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Mr Clarke: That is precisely one of the matters we are considering. The European Convention on Human Rights discusses the question of deprivation of liberty and the question of what is a deprivation of liberty in that area is a matter for very detailed consideration. When we come to make our proposals before the House of Commons I will set out our position on that very clearly. I am not going to go further now than I have gone in the past in that area. Q42 Mr Green: Would you be reluctant to look for a new derogation? Mr Clarke: Yes, I would, because I do not think derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights is a very pleasant thing to do, but would I do it if I considered it to be necessary, I certainly would, because at the bottom line my responsibility is national security and that is the number one issue. That is the reason why in the past we have derogated and that is the reason why I would be prepared to derogate again if necessary. Would I be reluctant to, of course I would. I think it is preferable not to derogate but it is even more preferable not to have organisations of individuals which are fundamentally threatening the society in which we all live and enjoy our freedoms. Would I do so if necessary, I certainly would. Q43 Mr Green: Do you take the point about the balance, that if you say you want to defend our freedoms you could destroy them in the act of defending them? Mr Clarke: I would not only take the point, I have made it myself. As I said in answer to Mr Winnick's question about Lord Hoffmann, I do not take the point to the extreme level which I am not sure whether you are arguing or not. You appear to be arguing, although I may have misunderstood, that it is so dangerous to our freedoms to take away any individual's freedom in the way that I suggest that you should never do it. In fact, if you say you should never do it, I do not agree because I think there are circumstances in which it may be necessary to do it. Would I be reluctant to do it, certainly. Do I think it is a nice thing to do, no I do not. Do I think it may well be necessary to do it, yes I do. Q44 Mr Green: The core of the argument is doing it with proper legal process or not. I think we all agree clearly that a democratic society can take away people's liberty if there is due legal process, the worries here are that we are giving that power to take away liberty to a politician, which ought to give any democrat serious pause. Clearly there will be new legislation brought forward about this and you yourself have said that this involves a very substantial increase in the executive powers of the state. Can we therefore assume that the safeguards that you will be introducing will be stronger than the safeguards in the 2001 Act? Mr Clarke: Firstly, I do not regard the word "politician" as a term of abuse. I know some do but it is not my view. I think one of the virtues of having a democratic society is we have democratically elected people who happen to be called politicians because they behave in that way. I do not think to be a politician is a dishonourable thing, I do not think to be a government minister as a politician is a dishonourable thing. As a famous Conservative once said "Democracy is a better form of dealing with these things with its imperfections than any alternative that has been suggested". I do not regard it as wrong, as I said in answer to previous questions, for the Home Secretary of the day, who is of course a politician, to take responsibility for these matters, I think a government minister should. In terms of the safeguards compared with the 2001 legislation, I am not quite sure of the meaning of the question in terms of greater or lesser safeguards but I will certainly say that the kinds of judicial review which are included in the Part 4 legislation that we were talking about before seem to me a different kind of judicial safeguard that should be in the new regimes that we are talking about. Q45 Mr Green: What about the sunset clause? Mr Clarke: It is difficult in principle to look at sunset clauses because the idea of a sunset clause implies there is a time at which this issue is completely reserved, that it is an entirely temporary state of affairs. I hope we are in that position and certainly I am in favour of regular review and regular decision by Parliament to take it forward and I am not in favour of infinite legislation, if I can put it like that, but I have never really seen the case for a sunset clause because I have always assumed that Parliament would want to renew powers itself and that should be part of the process that we have. Q46 Mr Green: You have said you will introduce some safeguards. One could easily envisage a situation where an individual is deprived of liberty under this and the intelligence is wrong, this will inevitably happen. Are you going to introduce arrangements for some kind of compensation for individuals who have been treated like that? Mr Clarke: We have got no plans to do so. I am not aware of cases where that argument can be made. I think it is worth just making the point that the legal representatives of an individual in the position you are describing are capable in the SIAC court or in the SIAC type court of making precisely that case in the way that they do, and that is part of the process. Q47 Mr Green: Finally, can I ask one practical question which is in the post-Belmarsh era, if you like, clearly something had to change and under the system you are proposing at least some of these people, whether it is a handful, whether it is up to 100, however many it is, presumably will be living in their communities surrounded by people who may feel some sympathy for them but deprived of at least some significant liberties. In practical terms, is that not likely to prove potentially a flashpoint? Mr Clarke: Certainly it could be and certainly it would need to be one of the considerations which the Home Secretary of the day would have to take into account when considering whether or not to apply control orders and precisely what nature of control orders ought to be applied in particular circumstances. Certainly that could be an issue and it would be quite wrong to imply that it might not be. Is it of itself a consideration which in general is such an acute concern that I would say we should never have the power to address the matters in this way, no, I would say not but if you make the point that the knock-ons in any particular community would need to be properly considered, of course I agree with you. Q48 Chairman: Before we leave these questions, would you be a happier man if you could today apply the control orders to one or more of the people who have been released from Guantanomo Bay? Mr Clarke: I am not going to comment on the particular Guantanomo case. I have made a self-denying ordnance on that matter and so I will not comment on it. I will make the general remark that the ability to use control orders would enhance the security of the country compared with not having them in my opinion, so in that sense I would be a happier man. Q49 Chairman: A lot of our discussion this afternoon has been on the basis that you face an unprecedented threat. Your police minister, Hazel Blears, is reported as saying that the new powers could be used against the extreme wing of the animal rights movement. Is that really the Government's intention? Mr Clarke: No, the Government's intention is to look at the international terrorist threat, which we are all aware of. I think there is a distinction which has been confused in the conversations which have taken place. If one was to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights, I think it would be appropriate to derogate in relation to a particular threat, of which the al-Qaeda and related threat would be the obvious case. I think that Parliament would require if there was a derogation to be convinced that the threat was such that derogation was justified. As far as the other control orders are concerned, a level less than derogation is concerned. The general ability to use those orders is in relation to any terrorist activity. I think that is a correct gradation in the proportionality that we are describing. Now I do not make any comment in that regard about animal rights, or indeed any other particular organisation, but I do think that terrorism is an issue which does need to be addressed though a derogation, in my opinion, should only take place at the absolute extreme level of threat which is the international terrorist threat around al-Qaeda and its related organisations. Q50 Chairman: You might be, if I understand you, banning the use of computers or the Internet or mobile phones or people involved in types of activities which have nothing to do with international terrorism? Mr Clarke: They might have to do with terrorism. That could only happen in relation to terrorism, it could not happen in relation to political lobbying or arguments being made or demonstrations or anything of that kind. This is a debate that I was close to when I was the Minister of State at the Home Office and we dealt with the Terrorism Act 2000. There was a whole series of issues about what was or was not terrorism, and there is a perfectly reasonable debate to be had on these matters. I believe there is a clear definition of what is terrorism as opposed to political activism. I think in the case of terrorism, ie the intention to blow up and terrorise people, that the control orders are a reasonable regime. At the level of deprivation of liberty, ie derogation from the Convention, I think that should only apply in relation to the international terrorist threat represented by al-Qaeda and similar organisations. Q51 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Home Secretary, at a recent meeting of the Merseyside legal intelligencia there were significant criticisms of your ability to detain indefinitely. There was reference to the Joint Committee on Human Rights' conclusions that long term derogations from human rights obligations have a corrosive effect on the culture of respect for human rights on which the effect of protection of all right depends. They argue that your right to detain indefinitely was undermining people's confidence in the justice system. How do you answer that criticism? Mr Clarke: In the same way that I sought to earlier, I do not think it is true. I think the real threat to our society is from those who seek to destroy it which is what we have to protect ourselves against. The lead intelligencia from Merseyside has to answer the question, in my opinion, what steps would they take to protect this country against a genuine threat to our national security, they have to answer that question. In my opinion that is the question they have to answer in the same way as I have to or you have to in considering how to address these issues. I do not claim that there is an easy answer to it, and certainly I do not think it is a straight forward point. If there are those who say "Let us not worry about the international terrorist threat because the individual rights of those people are of greater importance", I can understand it but I do not accept it. Chairman: Thank you, Home Secretary, for your answers on that. If we may, we would like to turn to other matters and begin perhaps with the issues you were discussing in the House yesterday. James Clappison. Q52 Mr Clappison: Can I move on to the subject of asylum and immigration, Home Secretary. You may be aware that one of the things which causes members of the public concern about the asylum system is that when applicants' claims fail the applicants remain in the country anyway because they simply do not happen to be removed. This is something the Government itself has recognised as a problem and has a target which you have found it difficult to meet in the past. You will be aware that our Committee produced a report on this and at the time of the publication of the Committee's report in January last year, removals had increased to 18,000 a year but since then, I understand, the rate of removals has fallen back again to about 15,000 a year, the latest figure. Can you throw any light on that? Mr Clarke: I do not have the figures in front of me but I can write to the Committee, Mr Clappison, with the detailed figures to answer the point that is made. The fact is that the removals issue is the central issue, as I said yesterday, for the credibility of the whole system. There are three measures we need to take to address it. The first is to ensure we are in full contact with those individuals who have failed in their bid for asylum. Secondly, we need to deal with the people who have destroyed their documents in an effort to avoid being removed to the country from which they have come. Thirdly, we need to be in a position to make agreements with countries not agreeing with us currently effectively to work to remove people to those countries. Those are the three pillars of our policy to try and take the situation forward. The level of removals in this country is harder than it has ever been over this recent period, but we have to do a great deal better. Q53 Mr Clappison: I will come back to that last point in a moment but, in addition to the three pillars which you mentioned there, I think our Committee would modestly say that we put forward a little pillar of our own because we put forward a recommendation that you accept in principle that asylum seekers should be required to attend in person to receive their appeal decision. Has that been implemented? Mr Clarke: I do not think it has been implemented at this stage. Again, I am happy to come back to the Committee on that. Certainly we are intending to do that and it was a good proposal which was made by the Committee. I am not sure what the actual state of implementation of it is as we speak but I am happy to come back to the Committee on that. Q54 Mr Clappison: Coming back to your last point, which is an important one, about the scale of the problem, you say that the rate of removals is the highest it has ever been but in fact it is running behind still the rate of asylum applications, and I suspect the rate of failed asylum applications as well even though that latter one has fallen, asylum applications. Can you throw any light on how many people there are who are in a position of having a failed asylum claim and who are eligible for deportation or removal, therefore? Mr Clarke: Firstly, you are right in your central point that it remains the case that the number of removals is behind the number of asylum applications and we stated in our document that we published yesterday it is our intention to close that gap as soon as possible, and we believe we can do it in the coming months and be able to achieve that. Secondly, as far as the numbers are concerned, I am not going to offer a number to the Committee. The fact is that the number of people who are here illegally, as the former Home Secretary, Michael Howard, said some eight or nine years ago, is something that no Home Secretary in this system has been able to know. The virtue of the proposals that we put forward to the House yesterday is that by about 2008 we will be in a position to know the proper answer to that question because of the regime we are putting in place. Q55 Mr Clappison: Can I press you on that because you mention the number of people in the country illegally, that would be a larger figure than the number of asylum seekers who are eligible for deportation, I think the correct term is removal. Do you know of the number of asylum seekers who have failed claims who are eligible for removal? Mr Clarke: I do not have that figure to hand, though again I am happy to write to the Committee on that. I do not have that figure to hand. Q56 Mr Clappison: Because it would look on the face of it that that figure is very much larger certainly than the rate of removals, and it is going to take the rate of removals a long time to catch up with that figure. Do you not think this affects the credibility of what you were saying yesterday about your scheme for low-skilled workers and the quota based system when you told the House yesterday that would be "tightly managed to ensure people return home at the end of their stay?" It does not bode very well for that, does it? Mr Clarke: I do not think you are right about that. I said myself yesterday, so I am prepared to give you credit for a certain level of originality in repeating what I said, that it is the case that the credibility of the whole system depends on the effectiveness of our removals strategy. That is true. I said it yesterday. It is why I think it is so important. As far as the low-skill schemes are concerned, we believe they should be phased out over the next few years, for the reason that we believe there is a supply of labour from the European Union, new and old, which will fill the gaps which are needed in our workforce and that we can direct that through. We have said in reviewing that and phasing it out, we are prepared to look at very particular narrow schemes if they are necessary - I am not convinced they are necessary, by the way - but only with countries who would be prepared to sign returns agreements with us so that people would not be coming here and staying here illegally. I think the proposals I set out will close an important gap in the process in an important way. Q57 Mr Clappison: I accept your version but you did use the expression "tightly managed" in respect of such schemes as there would be. Can I move on to ask you about the quality of initial decision-making in asylum applications which is recognised in many quarters as being a problem. What are you doing to address that problem? Mr Clarke: We have specifically set out, and it is set out in Annex 2 of the paper we published yesterday, a new asylum system precisely to get better quality decisions more quickly. We have actually brought down processing times to an average of about two months for 80% of cases from 22 months some period ago, so we have seen quite significant improvements. However, the implication of your question is correct, we still have not got to the point we need to and we still need to improve what we do, including to improve the quality of the decisions. That is an essential element of what I said yesterday. Q58 Mr Clappison: I remember your predecessor's predecessor appearing before the Standing Committing on the Asylum and Immigration Bill in 1999 saying much the same thing. Are you yourself able to put any timescale on when you will achieve these improvements? Mr Clarke: We have already achieved significant improvements. As I said a second ago, the processing for asylum applications going down to two months from 22 months is by any definition a significant improvement which has happened. Can I set a timescale for future improvements? I am not intending to do that but I believe they will be very rapid and effective. Q59 Mr Clappison: Can I ask you on the issue of immigration more widely, you were asked yesterday about what level you would be prepared to accept - I think it was my colleague, Peter Lilley, who asked a question about it - and he mentioned a figure of 150,000 a year being the net migration figure into the country and you were asked about your attitude towards that figure. Is that a figure you would be prepared to accept over the longer run as a consequence of your plans? Mr Clarke: As I said to Peter Lilley, he obviously wants a more centralised system than I do. When I look in the newspapers today, as I do regularly, I see the Higher Education Funding Council for England reporting that British universities are seeking to expand the number of students coming to this country by about 35,000 - I cannot remember what the figure is. Q60 Mr Clappison: That is a thorny issue. Mr Clarke: Indeed, there will be thorny issues there. Am I going to say we should stop British universities recruiting students overseas? Well, I am not; I think they should recruit students overseas. I think British employers who wish to do so should recruit employees from overseas in the target areas we have identified. I think that is the best way to operate. The problem is not the number of people coming into the country, it is people evading, not playing by the rules, not operating the system in a proper way. So the issue is enforcement principally rather than numbers. I know the Conservative Party wishes to play the numbers game on this but I do not accept that is the right way to go. Q61 Mr Clappison: 150,000 has been the level over the last several years. You have told us your views on what the universities want and perhaps some employers would want, do you take into account the population pressures and housing pressures this is creating, given that such a large number of the people inwardly migrating to the country want to live in the South East and London? Mr Clarke: I do take into account those pressures and I think those issues are real. How do I address them? Firstly, it is very important people who come here to migrate are able to support themselves financially and economically, including in housing and other areas, and they do not become a burden on the state. That is generally the case for people who migrate to work and study. Secondly, people who are seen as "burdens" in this area are people who are here illegally who should not be here. They are the issue rather than the people who are coming legally to work and study. Thirdly, it is the case there are significant parts of the country who feel they positively want to encourage migrants to their part of the country. The example I gave yesterday was Scotland, where the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish executive have a Fresh Talent initiative which is specifically designed to bring people into the country because that enables them to deal with some of the de-population which they otherwise worry is causing problems for their economy and society in Scotland. That would be true of some parts of England as well, so I certainly think that is a consideration which has to come through. My main point is, as I say, of course it is possible for anybody to play the numbers game in this area, but I do put it to you and all members of the Committee, Mr Denham, that playing a numbers game is a very dangerous route to play. I think we should look, alternatively, at what our economy needs, what our society needs, how we should operate and also what our obligations in international law are for those genuinely fleeing from tyranny. That is where we should start. The second set of considerations is who is evading the system and by what means they are evading the system and how we can stop that happening. That is what my paper was setting out to do. Q62 Mr Clappison: I will happily join with you in paying tribute to the contribution which migrants make to our society. The 150,000 figure I was referring to was legal migration and the question of those who are illegally here is an entirely different matter. On the subject of legal migration, those 150,000, if you look at the figures, are wanting by and large to move into the South East, that is where they are wanting to live - London and the South East - and the figures going to Scotland and Wales are very small indeed. The way migration patterns work is that people move into the South East. In my county, Hertfordshire, tomorrow we are having a meeting to discuss how we are going to put 79,000 extra houses into the county over the next 18 or so years. Do you look at those pressures and would you be happy with those pressures to continue? Mr Clarke: If you argue we should have regional development agencies who seek to build regional economies with strong universities, strong employers, drawing people in to migrate from other parts of the UK or other parts of the European Union, to the North West, the North East, I will go with you. In fact, a very large part of this Government's policy - part of which I understand the Conservative Party wants to rip up - is precisely to encourage economic development throughout the country and to get dynamic employers in parts of the country where there are issues of this kind. I support that approach, I think it is the right way to go. I do not accept a completely laissez-faire system, which simply says, "Let the market rule everything and draw people to London and the South East". The issue of migration and the figures you have mentioned is a sub-question within that overall issue of how you get economic growth and balance across the whole of the UK, and that is what the Government is committed to. Q63 Mr Singh: Home Secretary, before I ask a question I would like to make a comment. Whilst a debate on immigration is entirely legitimate and what we should be doing, what we should not be doing, the context is very important and the way we put it is very important because of the effect on people who were migrants, who were legitimately settled here, who are citizens of this country, who are contributing to this country, who have contributed to this country, and it is not always known the impact these debates have on people settled in that way in terms of their fears, their security from harassment and racism in this country. I hope Parliament will remember that whilst we debate these issues now and in the future. Mr Clarke: Can I say that I strongly agree with that point. If I am guilty of the charge of debating it in the wrong way, I would want to correct myself because I think it is very, very important (a) the questions are debated but (b) they are directed correctly. That is why I sought in my statement yesterday to emphasise right from the outset the very strong role that migration plays in our society and has done historically, and also the very important role this country has historically played in providing a refuge for people who are fleeing tyranny. They are both very important parts of where we are and I very much agree with the comments you have just made, Mr Singh. Q64 Mr Singh: Coming on to illegal working, Home Secretary, this is a concern we highlighted in our report on asylum in January 2004. We were concerned that tough action was not being taken against employers of illegal labour, we were concerned about the low levels of prosecutions against these employers. Now you made a statement yesterday about illegal working, would you like to tell the Committee how things are going to change under your new proposals? Mr Clarke: I think there are two aspects that I want to highlight particularly. The first aspect is the critical importance of tackling the people trafficking criminal organisations because though they traffic people into the country often, also, they traffic them into forms of illegal employment which are utterly appalling in the way they operate. We have seen a number of examples of that and I do think it is important to regard the people who are trafficked into the country as victims of evil men and women rather than as themselves the people who are the cause of the problem. We have to attack those. Secondly, we have to attack those employers who employ people illegally so yesterday into the document I put the proposition that there will be a £2,000 per illegal employee fine for any employer who employs somebody illegally. The reason why we make that proposal is that there is a lot of evidence that when we started saying to carriers of people into this country that they would be fined for bringing in people illegally that changed their behaviour. I think there are very many good employers in this country who would not want to be in that position and would work appropriately. Finally, we have discussed with colleagues and other government departments in these areas, both the Health Department, Treasury, DTI, DWP and others, how we can ensure that our regimes work together to plug in and identify people who are employed illegally. I think these three measures can improve our work in this area. Q65 Mr Singh: Is there any evidence to say prosecutions have increased recently? Mr Clarke: I do not know what the figures on that are. It is certainly true that prosecutions have increased in people trafficking on the first of those categories. We have had one just recently in my part of the world, East Anglia, a very major conviction of a man organising illegal labour in a variety of different ways, a Ukrainian. There have been a significant number of prosecutions in the people trafficking world. As far as prosecutions for employers employing people illegally are concerned, I do not have data to hand but, again, I am happy to write to the Committee with that if that would be helpful. Q66 Mr Singh: Moving on to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and the attitude of the Conservative Party towards it, first of all is it possible to set a quota on the number of refugees? I ask this in the context that most asylum seekers, and I might be wrong and I stand to be corrected, come here clandestinely, all with false documents. In those circumstances, how can you put a quota on people entering? Certainly you can try to remove them but is a quota practical? Mr Clarke: I think a quota is utterly impractical. It does go against the UN Convention but, as you correctly say, the overall majority of people seeking asylum do so in this country having, by whatever means, found their way into this country. Many of them have destroyed their documents so we cannot return them to a country, so there it is. The weakness of the quota argument, apart from the breaking of the right which is there in the UN Convention, is that you cannot implement the quota in that regard, and that is a very serious weakness. One of the reasons why I think it is so important that we stay signatories of the UN Convention on Human Rights is that we have to work with other countries to establish removal arrangements where removals are necessary. You cannot do that simply by being fortress Britain in splendid isolation from the rest of the world, we have to work with the rest of the world, it is very important to do so. Q67 Mr Singh: I cannot say, apparently, about this concept that pigs might fly. Would you agree it is pie in the sky and also an utterly foolish concept? Mr Clarke: Certainly I think it is pie in the sky and it is foolish. It is worse than that actually because in terms of the remarks you made at the beginning of your intervention, I think it is important to have this discussion, the question of who is entitled to be in the country, the question of who is entitled to settle in the country, the question of how we enforce it, these are absolutely fair subjects for the political discussion. They are of concern to the people of the country and they should be addressed but the obligation of everybody concerned, certainly myself, and it is a role that the Home Affairs Select Committee has helped with, is for all parties, and I do not only mean political parties I mean participants in this debate, to put forward properly considered practical propositions. If you do not do that people naturally have the fears that you describe. My appeal to all political parties, including my own in that sense, is to say let us have practical propositions. Q68 Mr Singh: The Refugee Convention, of course, came about in a totally different world, we are in a totally different era now. Is there any merit in relooking at the Convention and having an international discussion to make sure it reflects today's world and not the world of 1951? Mr Clarke: I think there is a great deal of merit in that and one of the things my predecessors looked at is how conceivably we could bring it more up to date because the world is now such a globalised world in such a different state of international travel from what existed then that it is right to say that we should look at it in that context. I would say that it needs to be looked at in the way you have suggested, ie in an international context of everybody together saying "What would be the best way to update it or amend it?" By definition it is not something this country could do unilaterally if it wished to do so and I think simply pulling out of it would be more damaging than anything else. If you say "Is it a perfectly formed legal document for the modern world, 54 years after it was signed?" I would say no, it does need to be looked at but in an international context and discussed properly. Q69 Mrs Dean: Home Secretary, the 2002 White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven proposed the introduction of language and knowledge tests for immigrants who were intending to settle here. Could you say what progress has been made with regard to this? Mr Clarke: Yes, there has been progress. In my previous capacity as Secretary of State for Education and Skills we had dialogue with the Home Office about trying to establish a proper availability of courses for people who wanted to learn in that way. There was quite a lot of discussion about it and the Learning and Skills Council has been looking at how it can support courses for people in that way. I cannot give a formal update on precisely what progress there has been but I can say there has been a lot of discussion about achieving it and I think in many parts of the country there are courses available in a way that was not the case in the past. It is the case, also, I can say there are parts of the country where the courses are not available which need to be. Q70 Mrs Dean: Would it be possible for you to let the Committee know? Mr Clarke: Yes. Perhaps I will give a substantive note for the Committee on the progress we have made in this area. Q71 Mrs Dean: Turning to ministers of religion. The Home Office has been consulting faith groups on its proposals to introduce religious qualification requirements for those seeking admission as ministers of religion. Can you tell us what has been the outcome of the consultation? Will the home Office be proceeding with the proposals? Mr Clarke: We are still in consultation. We have not taken a decision as to exactly how to proceed. What we do say is the sponsorship arrangements that we discussed in the document yesterday include a requirement for the community which wishes to bring a minister of religion from another country to sponsor that minister who comes. I think that is a correct way to proceed. Actually, I think that is a better way to proceed than simply looking at religious qualifications in a narrow way. Obviously the central requirement that people are faith leaders is an important part of the whole process but we are still considering the detailed response of the consultation. Q72 Mrs Dean: Following on from that, will you be trying to encourage those groups who are bringing ministers of religion into the country to ensure they have a good knowledge of the English language and of British customs as well? Mr Clarke: Yes, I will. Perhaps one particular aspect which I think is of interest was the recent agreement to produce a non-statutory code for religious education and where all faiths agreed to the way in which that is developed. What is very important is that religious education which is important in the modern world, faith education which is important in the modern world, is taught in a way that is respectful of other religions and deals on that basis. I think we now have a non-statutory framework for religious education which did not exist before which also ought to be part of the awareness process for people coming into this country. Q73 Mr Singh: A supplementary on this particular issue: my concern is that there are ministers of religion or holy men or specialists in special ceremonies who come to visit the UK, whether Muslims, Sikhs, and presumably Buddhists, they perform at various temples around the country, and they are established figures and leaders of their faiths abroad. Will they be caught by this new proposal? Mr Clarke: Certainly not. I think the established figures are precisely those we want to encourage to come to our country and to work with faith groups. It is increasingly an international world and that should be the case, so I do not see any issue of that kind. What I think is important is a minister who is coming should be related to a particular community, which could be a national community or a local community, which should take responsibility for the way in which that individual is here. I think that is a reasonable thing for us to ask, to ensure that is the way to operate. Q74 David Winnick: There was a case in Germany which was much-publicised, and rightly so, in Britain, where one particular preacher was coming out with the most poisonous racist stuff, accusing Germans of being infidels, being racist, inferior and dirty in all their habits. What sort of precautions do we have in Britain against the possibility some maniac would be preaching such staff in mosques? Mr Clarke: I think the core issue is the desire to prohibit incitement to hatred. We already have that in relation to race, and the amendment which the House passed yesterday at Report on the Serious and Organised Crime Bill deals with religious hatred as well, which means we now have in place a comprehensive way of attacking those who incite hatred. I do think incitement to hatred is a high test, it is not simply saying people cannot disagree with other religions or cannot make jokes about religions, or whatever, which I think in our society is important, that people are able to criticise religions, to make jokes about religions, but what is unacceptable is incitement to hatred. Both words are important, "hatred" and "incitement", and our legislative framework allows people who seek to do that to be brought to justice in an effective way, or will be if the Serious and Organised Crime Bill goes to law. Q75 David Winnick: I noticed a report in today's newspapers that in the Finsbury Park Mosque violence and intimidation was used against the congregation, or representatives of the congregation, who fortunately have won the battle against these extremists. Is it likely to occur in other places? Have the Home Office had reports where Muslim people are being intimidated and violence used against them by some of these thugs who use the mosque for purely political reasons? Mr Clarke: Not specifically, though I think it is important to pay tribute, as you have just done, Mr Winnick, to those at that particular mosque who organised to protect their right to worship in the way they thought right for themselves and inhibit those who sought to oppress them. There have been a lot of people at that mosque who worked well to try and make that happen. We are not aware of a large number of cases where this is taking place, but I join with you in applauding the work of those who say the place of worship - the mosque, the church, the synagogue - is precisely for that, to worship, and not to preach hatred. Q76 David Winnick: There are reports that people who leave the Muslim faith are in some danger of intimidation. The right to convert is absolutely essential in a free society - although I am not in favour of conversion to any faith, people should be left alone and no active conversion should take place, but in a free society that is right. But surely, there is an equal right to leave a religion, be it Islam, Judaism, Christianity, whatever? Will the authorities give protection to people who leave whatever faith but are subject to thuggery and intimidation in various forms? Mr Clarke: Of course I agree with that entirely. It is a critical individual liberty to decide what your faith is and people in their lives go through different decisions about the faiths they have, and that is a matter for them. Q77 David Winnick: But are the authorities taking active steps in view of some of the allegations which are being made? Mr Clarke: We would certainly do so, though I have to confess, Mr Winnick, I am not aware of the level of criticism you are making. I will certainly look at any particulars you bring to my attention. Q78 Chairman: Returning to yesterday's announcement, Home Secretary, and the question of illegal labour, some of the companies which benefit most from illegal labour, some of the big supermarket companies, banks and others who have offices, are protected from your new penalty by the fact they use sub-contracted companies who are the employers of the illegal labour. What measures are you going to take to push the responsibility for this practice up to the ultimate beneficiaries? Mr Clarke: Firstly, they are not protected in the sense that the contract employer is vulnerable in this area directly, but in terms of corporate responsibility, if I may put it like that, I completely agree with what you are saying. I have spoken to the Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry who tells me he intends to campaign on this matter with his members, in particular dealing with some of the gangmasters who are around, and that the voice of British industry, if I can put it like that, takes the view that this abuse has to be driven out. I am delighted that is the case. Chairman: Thank you very much. We will move on if we may to deal with one or two issues the Committee has been working on over the last year. We published a report just a few weeks ago on the rehabilitation of prisoners and the prison regime. Claire Curtis-Thomas? Q79 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Home Secretary, I find visiting our British prisons is by and large a very depressing activity. There are very few which inspire. Many seem to me to be ghettoes of last resort, and individuals leave them without being rehabilitated in the sense we would wish. You will be pleased to know, following a visit to Berlin Prison, the governor of Berlin Prison thinks the British penal system has some excellent merits but is absolutely aghast at the number of movements which we tolerate between our prisons, believing this has a very serious impact on our ability to rehabilitate. Having said that, I hope you have had an opportunity to look at the Committee's Reports, particularly the conclusions in relation to prison work. In particular, do you accept that a radical transformation of the prison regime is needed to enable prisoners to do real work on a 9 to 5 basis and to have more access to day release? Mr Clarke: I do, but can I begin by saying that I am grateful for your full report and that it is my intention to respond to each of the, I think, 126 conclusions of the report and recommendations by early March. I appreciate the debate you have promoted by going down the course of this report. Secondly, I agree very strongly with the remark you have made about moving people. I have always argued that for a Government whose priorities are education and health, the least educated and least healthy people in the whole of the population of the country are those within the criminal justice system. I do not say it is impossible but it is very difficult to have a proper regime to address those education or health disadvantages, whether drugs and mental health, or illiteracy or innumeracy, whatever it might be, unless you take an individual right through instead of stopping and starting and changing around in the way you are implying. That is why the whole National Offender Management Service approach of end-to-end management of an offender dealing with these issues is I think so central. That said, I have to acknowledge I think there is a very long way to go to get to a state of affairs where we have achieved this, but if it is any consolation to the Committee, which I hope it will be, I identify personally very strongly and very directly with the thrust of the question you have just asked and I think it is very important indeed. Q80 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: I am very heartened to hear that. There are some prison stars in the UK, or there were. Coldingley Prison - I do not know if you have been to this establishment - has prided itself in the past on a 9 to 5 regime, and the Committee actually received correspondence from one of the prisoners at Coldingley. He says this: "Work - proper work, is, I believe, the key to success. It also removes doubt and excuse and cause - that is to say, that if someone is in work and earning a reasonable wage then there is no reason to have to commit a crime. If he/she did, then they are greedy people and moreish. In my case, if I had a job and somewhere decent to live, I do not think I would re-offend ever again." He then goes on to say that he has only had six months outside since 1990 and his experience was of sleeping on a floor, living in a car and being harassed and moved on by people. Certainly within his letter there is a coherent argument for more work in prison. Subsequently he has been removed to Cardiff and he says the regime in Coldingley has changed because short-term prisoners have been admitted and the normal nine to five routine has been severely disrupted by the different types of people admitted to that prison today. Do you know whether that is the case? Mr Clarke: I do not know Coldingley Prison myself, I have not visited but I have been briefed about the case because your report praised the prison as a model of best practice. What I am told is, firstly, that it is not true there has been a cutback in prisoner training at Coldingley. It is the case that all prisoners have individually tailored development plans, which include specific learning goals including three core industries: laundry, engineering and the science shop. Since January 2000 there has been a 63 % increase in the number of prisoners obtaining Level 2 education qualifications in the prison and Coldingley has not had an influx of short-term prisoners. I am told the current population is a typical snapshot and shows that only eight prisoners are serving two years or less and nearly 90 % of the total prison population of 390 are serving four years or more, including 42 life sentence prisoners. I believe, also, that the investment we are putting through custody to work and on rehabilitation activity across the range demonstrates a commitment by the Government to try and get a more coherent approach into this area. The account that you give of the shift to Cardiff Prison indicates that we still have, as I implied in my answer to your earlier question, a very substantial amount of work to do to be able to achieve what we need to do. Q81 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Your answer, Home Secretary, begs a number of questions. I am delighted to hear you state your commitment to the Prison Service because I think it appears to have been abandoned for a very long period of time. I presume that your response indicates that the Prison Service, which has repeatedly failed to meet its targets in relation to providing purposeful activity, will now be given the resources in order to deliver its targets, is that correct? Mr Clarke: On the levels of purposeful activity, our target as you know was 24 hours a week purposeful activity, which we did narrowly miss, but I am told that for the current year average hours stand at 24.1 hours, slightly over the target. We are focusing, also, on the quality of activity which is available to prisoners. I think the point I want to make though is that we are trying to make moves in this direction. I do not think I am begging the question in saying so, I think your own scrutiny, and indeed the Inspector of Prisons' scrutiny, of what is happening is important, and I welcome it because we need to be making progress in these areas. Q82 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Okay. Can I take you on to the statistics which you have in front of you which is the 24 hour target. I am always very concerned when I hear that figure because my experience of prison visits and talking to prisoners, and indeed this Committee's experience of prison diaries, would suggest that the reality of day to day prison life is substantially different from that figure you quote. Now do you acknowledge that there is a discrepancy between the reported figures and the actual figures because that is my view? How do we get at the real figures of purposeful activity? Mr Clarke: I will study both the Committee's report and any evidence you want to send me about the discrepancy in the figures that we are talking about here. I am not aware of a discrepancy of the kind that you describe but if that is indeed the case I would be most interested to look at the evidence in these matters. It is a problem, of course, of all targeting regimes and all discussions on these matters that the quality of the statistics, the quality of performance indicators and so on is an important element. I would be particularly interested in any data you can give me on that particular proposition. Q83 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: I would be particularly interested to have the answer to this question which is 24 hours may appear on the timetable but my experience is that shortage of staff, lock-ups, security incidents, et cetera, would lead people not to turn into work or to purposeful training and that is where the mismatch between stated figures at the end of the year of what was notionally available and what was experienced by prisoners comes to the fore. Mr Clarke: Where I am ready to agree with you is that the figures which we are talking about should be about actual experience rather than timetable and prepared experience. It should be based on actuality and, as I say, I am ready to have dialogue about the best way of getting to that. Q84 Chairman: Home Secretary, I think you would acknowledge that during our inquiry there was a desire to address some of the issues which we raise in our report, although I think in a much less radical way than we suggested. One area of big concern to us, where there seemed to be no impetus for change, was the treatment of short-term prisoners, both those on remand who even if they get convicted may well end up then being released fairly shortly afterwards because of the time they spent on remand, with whom virtually nothing positive is done, and the very substantial numbers of short-term prisoners. Again we got the strong impression the Prison Service had given up doing anything positive with those prisoners. Now we know the new sentencing regime will reduce the number of short-term sentences but there are still going to be tens of thousands in the system. I wonder if you have had a chance to look at this and whether as Home Secretary you could look again at the whole question of people who are spending a number of months or perhaps under a year in prison who really get nothing out of the experience and who, frankly, as far as we can see, the Prison Service is simply shifting from one place to another until their release date comes up? Mr Clarke: Firstly, I am ready to look at this, as I say, and I will be responding to your report in detail. Secondly, you are right, I think, to refer to the sentencing regime and the Custody Plus approach is designed to achieve that. Thirdly, there are a range of interventions for remand of short-term prisoners both on health, basic skills, drugs, job search and benefits advice, which are relevant. Fundamentally I think what we need is, firstly, a set of sentencing which does require people to commit, for example, to drug rehabilitation or basic literacy or numeracy or whatever, and that is what we are trying to achieve. Secondly, and I cannot avoid the question that Mrs Curtis-Thomas raised earlier on, we need an end to end management of every offender. We need to start from the beginning and have a process of interventions which can assist them. If the charge is made that we have not done anything like as well as we need to in these areas I would have to plead guilty to it. On the other hand, I do think there have been a number of significant improvements in what has happened. I have a prison in my constituency and to the extent I have travelled around prisons there is a significant increased capacity to do with education over the time I have been a Member of Parliament in that prison in particular but, also, in other prisons I have visited. I think there is a greater determination to get to a better relationship between the Prison Service and other agencies which I think is the right way to go. To be candid, I agree with the point, we have only taken a few steps down that route and there is a much longer way to go. Q85 Chairman: Remand prisoners, for example, of course, are innocent until they have been to court and the court has decided whether they are guilty or not but would it not face up to the real world better if there was some mandatory drug treatment regime, even for remand prisoners? Mr Clarke: Yes, and the regime that is being considered by the House in the Drugs Bill at the moment provides a mandatory regime, which has not been there before, for precisely that reason. We will go down that course and I think it is important that we do. I was in Greater Manchester the other day looking at their approaches on this matter and I think there is a great deal we can do. I would not want the Committee to feel that the Government is not trying to respond to the points you are making. I would not want the Committee to continue making the case it is because I think an argument still continues to need to be made in these areas, I acknowledge that freely. Q86 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Home Secretary, I am, for one, absolutely delighted with the new community sentences that we have introduced. Last year I had occasion to visit one of my local probation offices to find out how these were being implemented. When I asked how many of them were current and deployed in the region, I was told 69. Now 69 to me seems to be a pitiful number when to me they seem to be a marvellous vehicle for retribution and reparation in the community. I have done some digging to find out why only 69, when I thought the figures would be at least into the hundreds, and it appears that there is a lack of knowledge about these community sentences and lack of purposeful activities for individuals who are allocated the sentence to undertake. What are you doing really to improve the opportunity for a community sentence, and how are you ensuring the community works together to realise the opportunities for reparation in the community and that the public are aware that people who commit crimes in their community are seen to undertake activity which brings about a sense of amends? Mr Clarke: I think there are three or four different things to say in relation to this. One, we have to ensure through the judicial system, the criminal justice system as a whole, the courts, whatever form of court, are fully aware of the options which are available. Secondly, we have to get to a state of affairs where we ensure there are proper partnerships between prison, probation and offender management generally and other key agencies, particularly education, social services, health and employment. My own experience is that those relationships are still far less developed than they need to be. Thirdly, we need to ensure there are particular provisions which are developed to meet the particular needs, whether on drugs or whatever it may happen to be. All I would say is, again what I said before, that impatience in these areas is entirely justified but do not confuse the fact we have not gone far enough, which we have not, with the fact there is no progress in these areas. I think there has been progress. Q87 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: It is pitifully slow, in my view. I would like to see fewer people in prison and more out in the community so I can point them out to my constituents and say, "Justice is being seen to be done here." At the moment I cannot do that and I do not understand why we have to pay for people to go to prison when they could be contributing to our local economy by improving the appearance of our community. I want to see some action about that and next year, when I ask you the same question, which I will, I hope I am going to get the answer that we have thousands of people in these community sentences in my area. That will make me feel much happier. Mr Clarke: I will prepare very, very carefully for your question next year. Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Thank you. Q88 Chairman: On that forward-looking note, Secretary of State, I think we should thank you for what has been an extensive session. Thank you for responding so clearly to all the issues which have been raised and we look forward to our next evidence session with you. Thank you very much. Mr Clarke: Thank you very much. |