Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
RT HON
CHARLES CLARKE
MP AND SIR
JOHN GIEVE
KCB
25 OCTOBER 2005
Q60 Mr Streeter: Just before I move on
to my final question, you are 100% confident that violent crime
in this country is not on the increase?
Mr Clarke: It depends on what
particular type of crime you want to include in that. Do I think
violent crime has gone down? Yes, I do.
Q61 Mr Streeter: Crime against the person.
Mr Clarke: Violence against the
person? I would need to just double-check what the statistics
are of the most recent period in the BCS survey,[6]
but if you take the great swathes of category that add up to violent
crime, I am absolutely certain that violent crime generally is
going down. If you then come to particular categories, that
varies category by category.
Q62 Mr Streeter: Drug offences recorded
by the police in the last relevant period increased by 25%. Do
you accept that, or is that also incorrect? If it is correct,
what is the reason for that?
Mr Clarke: Drug offences recorded
by police, you say? I do accept it. Just for the avoidance of
doubt, Mr Streeter, I do not doubt any of the recorded crime figures
given by the police. What I say is that they are measuring different
things, ie recorded crime, than the actual level of crime, and
that is a key point which needs to be understood. So yes, I do
accept that recorded crime, recorded drug crime has increased.
Again, I think the fact that more of it is recorded is a good
thing, but I think it is an absolute blight on our society which
needs the kinds of measures which in our drug programme we think
we have set out very clearly.
Q63 Mr Streeter: Why is it on the increase?
Mr Clarke: I think that the key
fact is that we are recording more, as I say, but the fact is
that drug abuse is widespread in society, and that is the fact.
If you ask me to try and explain the sociological reasons for
that, that is more difficult. How do we attack it? Firstly, by
stopping the ability of drugs to come into this country, and the
measures that we have taken we have had some big successes recently.
To do that is very important. Secondly, by understanding the drug
distribution systems that operate—it was part of my answer
to questions earlier on—to try and understand how the drugs,
once they arrive in this country, then get into particular communities,
and actually, one of the reasons for the reorganising of policing,
about which I was asked earlier on, is to try and make sure we
understand better what is happening in that area than we do now.
Thirdly, to have a much clearer picture than we have at the moment
of the overall drug marketplace. The Serious and Organised Crime
Agency being formed at the moment, there in its basic form, is
examining very carefully the pattern of drug crime and trying
to make sure we understand it better, because we do not understand
it as well as we need to.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
We turn now to community relations and terrorism issues.
Q64 Mr Winnick: As far as extremism and
terrorism is concerned, Home Secretary, does it remain the view,
which was echoed many times prior to 7/7, not if but when, regarding
terrorist attacks against our people?
Mr Clarke: I am certain the answer
is "when" on terrorist attacks against our people, as
you put it there. I think there are people who want to launch
terrorist attacks on our people. There have been and continue
to be such efforts made. As to whether they are successful or
not, my aim all the time is obviously to achieve a situation where
the attacks cannot be successful. That obviously failed on 7/7,
with the terrible consequences that we saw, and my ambition is
to make sure that attacks fail in the future rather than succeed.
For some considerable time we will be in a position where there
are people seeking to launch terrorist attacks in this country,
yes.
Q65 Mr Winnick: You accept therefore
that we should be prepared for further terrorist attacks, however
much one hopes the authorities, the police and the security authorities,
will be able to prevent that happening.
Mr Clarke: Absolutely, 100%, and
we work absolutely on that basis, and we need to be prepared,
both in terms of doing our best to prevent them succeeding and
then in terms of doing our best in terms of ensuring, if they
do succeed, we are best able to deal with them.
Q66 Mr Winnick: There are those groups
of people who live in this country whose views are totally alienated
from the vast majority of Muslims. Of that there is no doubt at
all, and amongst the victims of 7/7 were Muslims, as we know,
but on 22 September you set out various objectives in trying to
tackle the causes of extremism and for engaging Muslims. How optimistic
are you that with that particular hard core of people alienated
from their own community, from the Muslim community, as well as
obviously being alienated from British society, that progress
can be made?
Mr Clarke: Very optimistic. Perhaps
I could take this opportunity, Mr Winnick, to pay public tribute
to all faiths, within this context particularly the Muslim faith,
for their response to these terrible events, not only with the
formalistic remarks of disassociation, which are important, but
with the absolute determination to commit to building faith communities
in a way which marginalises extremism in whatever way. There has
been a great deal of energy, drive and commitment to make that
happen, and I feel very optimistic that it will make a difference.
Q67 Mr Winnick: You have had a very active,
helpful response from the Muslim community generally following
7/7?
Mr Clarke: Very much so. We had
a set of events that took place, and at that event on 22 September
which you refer to there had been a lot of work done in a number
of different areas by the Muslim community, including, importantly,
by young members of the Muslim community and women within the
Muslim community. Moreover, generally, large numbers of members
of the Muslim community have sought to try and present themselves
to help us deal with the extremism that is there in a very positive
and strong way. We have to think how we can do better in that,
because there is quite a lot we still have to do to take advantage
of that very positive goodwill, but I think the initial steps
have been strong.
Q68 Mr Winnick: You put forward a proposal
for a National Advisory Council of Imams and Mosques. How will
this actually be chosen? Is there not a danger it will be seen
simply as a pawn of the Home Office?
Mr Clarke: Actually, it was a
proposal that came from the Muslim community itself, publicised
on that day, 22 September, and the reason why they proposed it
was because they thought they needed more coherence to what happened
there in that way. We support it, and I publicly supported it
then and do so now, but the specific types of activities are about
good practice guidelines, for example, for mosque committees,
to ensure they are representative and effective; practical guidance
on curriculum development for extended schools and madrassas,
and the developing of skills programmes for Imams themselves.
These things by definition have to be led by the Muslim community.
The idea was theirs, we support it, we encourage it, and it gives
a framework for taking it forward. We are ready to resource it
as well, which we think is important, and I think it reflects
a commitment by the Muslim community to take this issue very strongly
and very seriously.
Q69 Mrs Dean: Home Secretary, how will
you ensure that the National Advisory Council will involve Muslim
women and young people, as it is an Advisory Council of Imams
and Mosques?
Mr Clarke: Two of the seven streams
of work into that event, one dealing with women, the other dealing
with young people, made a number of very specific proposals about
how we should do precisely that, but in fact, at the event that
we had—and Mr Malik was one of those present at the event
we had on 22 September—there were a significant number of
both women and young people and young women who were presenting
the work and developing it forward, and there was a set of propositions
around education and the way in which mosques operate which were
designed to encourage that kind of work. I was very encouraged
by that actually, because one of the criticisms that has been
made of the Government over time is that we focus too much on
dealing with, if I can put it like this, the "traditional"
leadership of the communities rather than young people within
the communities. I certainly took that seriously, but one of the
good aspects of the recommendations that were made was the desire
to involve women and young people directly.
Q70 Mr Malik: Home Secretary, the initial
comments of our Chairman, John Denham, were that you have been
to every meeting thus far, and that the new members are getting
fed up. Can I just place on record that I am not one of those
new members. I am delighted you are here and I look forward to
seeing you on 8 November. Who will choose the influential populist
religious scholars who are to travel the country combating extremism?
Mr Clarke: The community itself
will decide who the right people to be involved in that are. I
think that is correct. By the way, I should say, on your initial
remark, I am always delighted to come to this Committee. It has
been an exciting and liberating experience for me since the beginning
of September, but I am going to try and encourage my ministerial
colleagues to come and participate in these other discussions.
It is critically important that this roadshow which we have discussed
is one which is respected and engaged in by the Muslim community
itself. Therefore, the people that we are talking about involving
in this have to be people, in my opinion, chosen by the community
as people who will have respect within the community, if I can
put it like that. It would be ludicrous for me to try and select
such people; it would not be appropriate. There are two types
of scholars who it is intended to invite: religious mainstream
authorities and so-called middle path voices who engage with young
Muslims to ensure that we have an engagement approach. There is
a set of areas where we are looking at possible candidates to
see how that would operate.
Q71 Mr Malik: Home Secretary, do you
think that on these roadshows we might be missing an opportunity
because, important as it is to have these kinds of scholars dealing
with issues of extremism, surely, at the end of the day, the important
thing is that young people engage in our democracy, get involved
in politics? Given the state of the House of Commons and
the democratic deficit that undoubtedly exists, where there ought
to be circa 25 British Muslim MPs and there are four, would it
not be desirable at the same time for people to be going out on
this roadshow speaking about young people getting involved in
politics, in discourse and in debate as a mechanism to change
society and to deal with some of the anxieties and frustrations
that they might well have?
Mr Clarke: I think that is perfectly
appropriate, and your fundamental point I agree with completely.
It applies not only to the Muslim community but more generally.
The question of getting a greater engagement by the democratic
organs of the society, parliament, local government and so on
with all communities in the country, including young people in
particular, is an absolutely central theme of what we have to
do, but my key argument is, in fighting against those I refer
to, terrorists who seek to destroy democracy, our best weapon
is to strengthen our own democracy in the ways that you are implying,
and that is one of the things these roadshows are designed to
encourage.
Q72 Mr Malik: Home Secretary, our report—it
was not my report at the time—on Terrorism and Community
Relations called on the Home Office and the DfES to develop a
coherent cross-government approach to help and encourage schools
discuss these sensitive issues. The Government reply to our report
argued that it was better to leave this to schools and LEAs. Do
you still think that this is the right approach?
Mr Clarke: I think two things.
Firstly, I think the work we did when I was Education Secretary
to establish a non-statutory curriculum on religious education,
which was committed to by all faiths, to ensure that there was
a basis of teaching of religions in school, and indeed, the humanists
were also associated with it, that ensured that we were in a situation
that people, as they go through school, understand the reality
of what different faiths are compared to the caricatures of those
faiths which sometimes can be circulated, that is a very important
programme, including a programme of religious education and so
on. I also think that through the citizenship route there is a
string of developments that ought to be taking place in that area.
So I think there is a major role for government in relation to
this, and no, I do not think it is a matter that should simply
be left to schools.
Q73 Mr Malik: Is there a danger that
if some of the proposed terror legislation is not presented or
implemented in an appropriate or sensitive manner, it may indeed
alienate the very communities that we need to engage to defeat
the current terror threat?
Mr Clarke: There is a danger.
I was trying to be appropriate and sensitive myself, and try and
carry that through in that way. I do think that is a risk. That
is why we have worked very hard from the outset to engage the
main faith communities as much as we can in the work that we do.
I think it applies (a) to the general legislative proposals that
we have and (b) that applies to any particular decision that is
taken under that legislation to decide how you implement it in
a way which is sensitive. But I think I want to counsel against
what I call a false sensitivity, and I think you would probably
agree with me, Mr Malik, though you might not, that false sensitivity
says all this issue to do with the Muslim community is a bit too
hot to handle and we had better not do anything in this area.
I think actually the sensitivity is about handling it, addressing
it, being up-front about it, dealing with it properly, having
a proper discussion about it, in a sensitive way. Some people
say it is sensitive not to discuss this, and I do not agree with
that. I know you do not agree with that, but there are some people
who worry, who think it is all a bit too difficult. I actually
think we have to engage in a very direct way and I think the proposals
that have come from the Muslim community itself and our own proposals
are designed to discuss this rather than not to discuss it.
Q74 Mr Malik: My main concern around
much of that is really that we have to be clear that we are targeting
extremism and terrorism from wherever it comes. Obviously, at
this current moment in time, we know after 7/7 and 21/7 where
a lot of it is coming from, but as long as it is clear that we
are targeting extremism and terrorism, I think that is the key
message. To go back to the report on Terrorism and Community Relations,
the Government reply did not respond to the endorsement of the
Cantle Report for a debate about modern British identity. Is not
such a debate all the more vital after the London bombings, after
what we have seen in Birmingham over the last few days, and after
record votes that the BNP has message. To go back to the report
on Terrorism and Community Relations, the Government reply did
not yes. What is the qualification? I think there is a lot of
theoretical discussion that takes place about "the British
identity." I think it is very difficult to get that discussion
from that kind of thing on to a very material and practical basis
in a way that people can see. I am not myself certain of the best
way to do it. I am certain we ought to do it, I am certain it
is necessary to do it, but if I ask myself the best way of encouraging
that, I do not have a good answer to the question, because there
are a lot of theoreticians who discuss this in a way that I do
not always think is very helpful. What we have to do is emphasize
the type of society that we have, and to take it forward. I am
going to chair the Commission in Integration that we have decided
to establish, and we are currently thinking about constituting
it in the best way just at this moment to go through that kind
of discussion, but it is not a straightforward conversation.
Q75 Mr Malik: There is a great frustration
about debating. These debates go on, and they never come to any
conclusion. I am fed up to the back teeth debating British identity.
It would be useful at some point for the Government or somebody
to just try to come to a conclusion, maybe not a definitive one
but some kind of conclusion on what all this means. Otherwise,
it is going to be a mess out there that nobody is really able
to deal with. I would say it is the responsibility of government
and particularly the responsibility of the Home Office to lead
on some of this stuff. Would you agree with what I have been saying
for many years, and I think Birmingham exposes, and London is
always smug about, wrongly, that diversity does not equal integration?
Just because Brent is the most diverse borough, it does not mean
that integration is going on; the people still live parallel lives.
These are not northern issues. These are issues for the whole
country.
Mr Clarke: I completely agree,
and I think it is the responsibility of government, and I think
it is the responsibility of the Home Office within government,
and I agree with your point about integration vis-a"-vis
diversity. I will tell you why I think the issue has been
difficult. It is because facing up to these questions is not always
very easy, about how different communities live, what their beliefs
are, how they behave, what they do. It requires quite difficult
questions to be engaged and I think often people have stepped
back from that. All that said, I still believe—this may
put me into the complacent category—more good work has been
done in this area in this country than in many other countries
in the world, and we should not talk ourselves down in looking
at addressing some of these things. Of course, that does not say
we do not have an immense amount to do, but I do not think we
should be too self-flagellating about this.
Q76 Mrs Cryer: Further to Mrs Dean's
comment, the "influential religious scholars", will
they please include some women? There are some brilliant women
Muslims around. Just to name one, Dr Mona Siddiqui from Glasgow
University. She does the "Thought for the Day" spot
occasionally. She is terrific. I have met her. There are lots
more than her. It need not be all men, and they would set a really
good example to Muslim women out there, really good role models.
Mr Clarke: I agree with that point.
Q77 Mr Winnick: Do you accept, Home Secretary,
there remains a good deal of concern amongst the seriously injured,
the survivors of the mass murderers of 7 July, about compensation
and indeed the delays which have occurred? Have you any up-to-date
position on this matter, which is causing very much anxiety, not
only for those affected but for the public generally?
Mr Clarke: I do not have an up-to-date
position but I am happy to write to you following the meeting
today with the up-to-date position.[7]
Firstly, you are right about the concerns. Secondly, I would like,
as you raise the question, Mr Winnick, to make a couple of observations.
The first is that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority,
rightly in my opinion, needs to check with doctors and others
what the actual situation is of an individual before deciding
what award to make on the basis of the criteria which are there,
and the getting of the information, not just in these cases following
7/7 but more generally, does take time, though I agree with the
implicit comment that it can always be accelerated. Second, I
think there are some very difficult issues of principle involved
in all this. Our system is the most generous in Europe, and it
is far more generous than any other country as a system effectively
of no-fault compensation, but it raises quite serious issues about
how you treat different reasons for people's injuries. Why, in
principle, for example, should one treat differently somebody
who has been stabbed in a crime outside a pub in terms of the
compensation that is paid to somebody who has been involved in
some other kind of incident? The way that is resolved is by the
separate funds which are established to deal with the shock of
a particular event, but there are some quite serious issues. Why,
thirdly, should we deal differently with people, British citizens,
for things that happen in this country as opposed to things that
happen abroad? There is a whole string of issues here, including
whether we are generous enough for the more seriously injured
and whether we are giving too much for the people who are not
injured quite so seriously. So we are looking at all that. We
will engage in that debate. We will consult on proposals in the
near future. My only observation is that it is not quite as straightforward
as some people sometimes say.
Q78 Mr Winnick: It may not be so straightforward,
but when you take, for example, the young female whose legs were
amputated above the knee, and the compensation is £110,000,
that cannot possibly be satisfactory, and I hope, as I say, that
will be looked into. In view of the time, can I just ask you one
other question? I faxed your office yesterday the letter from
Lovells, solicitors, who are acting for 15 of the London bombing
victims, and they made the point that the compensation scheme
may be increased, and say, "As you will know, applications
under the current CICA scheme are considered from the date they
are submitted" and they are concerned that any increase of
the amount of the scheme may not benefit their clients, the victims
of 7/7. I hope that can be looked into. You have seen the letter.
Mr Clarke: I have indeed. It is
certainly something we can look into. It is difficult always to
change retrospectively but we will certainly look at that, Mr
Winnick.
Q79 Mr Winnick: If we are concerned about
terrorism and how to prevent it, surely we must be concerned—and
I take your earlier point about victims of knife attacks and the
rest—for those who are the actual victims, who manage to
survive such outrages?
Mr Clarke: Of course, and all
I can say—and I know it sounds defensive—it is a more
generous scheme than anywhere else in Europe, and we are trying
to change it in a way that best meets the needs of the modern
day in relation to this. Of course, on any incident that arises,
a constituent of yours, Mr Winnick, in some crime in Walsall or
wherever it may be, the situation is desperate for that family
and that individual who has been damaged, and it is a question
of trying to find a system which has some level of fairness.
6 See Ev 39 Back
7
See Ev 39 Back
|
