Examination of Witness (Questions 300-319)
RT HON
CHARLES CLARKE
MP
21 MARCH 2006
Q300 Mr Winnick: There is quite a
possibility, within the measure of consolidated Anti-Terrorism
Bill before the House of Commons, the Government will seek to
increase 28 days?
Mr Clarke: No, I am being very
clear. I am saying I am not committing myself to saying we will
back 28 come-what-may when that comes around; but I am also not
advertising any view to seek to change that. I am saying that
we should come to a view as to whether we should seek to change
it when we get to that point; but I have not got some back-of-my-mind
view that this or that is the way to deal with it. I am acutely
aware of the view of the House, as already expressed, and believe
that that needs to be taken very seriously.
Q301 Mr Winnick: One last question
from me. Has the Government learnt anything from what happened
on 9 November last year, except for a wish not to lose future
votes?
Mr Clarke: Parliament has to make
its decisions is what I think. I am very clear about you, Mr Winnick,
and have been clear in the House and elsewhere about your integrity
in dealing with these issues. Personally I think there is someone
at the other side of the House who allowed party political considerations
to go ahead of any consideration of national security and I think
that was unfortunate.
Q302 Mr Streeter: Briefly and following
on from the last question, Home Secretary, we all understand the
difficult balancing act you have to make between civil liberties
and security: you wanted 90 days; you have got 28 days. With the
rich benefit of hindsight, if you could have your time over would
you have done anything differently in presenting your arguments
to the House of Commons? Have you learnt any lessons from the
last six or nine months in getting the period you wanted?
Mr Clarke: It is a good question
and a difficult question. I would say, going back to what the
Chairman said earlier on, that there is benefit in scrutiny, for
example, through a select committee of these issues, and that
is why I think that is of benefit. I do not think we had that
option seriously on the timescale that we were on, on this particular
piece of legislation following 7/7, and that is my view. I think
the only thing to say is that I have to be self-critical about
my own powers for advocacy in that particular situation; but there
we are—that is life. That is in the interplay of politics
which is, at the end of the day, how Parliament comes to its view.
People take their views with different decisions. I know, for
example, there were a significant number of members of your side
of the House who thought 90 days was right but felt they were
whipped into a position to go the other way; just as I am sure
there were people on the Labour side of the House who did not
really feel happy about 90 days but felt they had to support the
Government position in that way. I think that is just how we have
to look at the issues. Maybe I should have been more articulate
in what I had to say, but I do not regret going for the 90 days.
I think that was the right thing to do and I still think it was
the right thing for the country.
Q303 Mr Clappison: I have some sympathy
for the position which the Government has put forward in this
but I have to tell you that I cannot accept the point which you
have just made earlier on about the way in which Members of Parliament
approach this on any side as far as I am concerned. I think people
have found it a very difficult decision. Can I ask you about what
you have just said about the process which you are now following
because you have told us you have got an open mind on this (I
think that is a summary of what you have said) as we approach
further possible terrorist legislation in 2007/2008? Is there
any work going on in the background of this in the Home Office?
Mr Clarke: On the 90 days specifically?
Q304 Mr Clappison: On the length
of detention, the 28 days?
Mr Clarke: The answer is yes.
We have got background work going on at the moment as to how we
would put forward a codified approach for counter-terrorism 2007,
as I said to the House, and that is all aspects therefore including
periods of detention in that area as well. There is not specific
work going on on this, as opposed to the overall body of counterterrorism
legislation.
Q305 Mr Clappison: Will you learn
the lessons which have been outlined today about the way in which
the process was conducted in this and present the case a different
way?
Mr Clarke: For the avoidance of
doubt, Mr Clappison, I know you personally took both a great interest
in this issue in this position and the principles of addressing
the issues and your own contributions to the debate. My general
remarks about Parliament's consideration certainly do not apply
to the way you were looking at it. I think the approach which
I set out in a statement to the House earlier this year of trying
to bring all the counterterrorism legislation we have, ideally
including the Northern Ireland counterterrorism legislation, into
one permanent legislative framework does have a much more considered
approach to all of it, including pre-legislative scrutiny and
the ability to debate much more fully where we can get to. Whether
that will at the end of the day get us to an all-party agreement
on where we need to be is, I think, a very interesting question
and I do not know the answer. It does not depend only on me; it
depends on how opposition parties decide to address these matters
as well.
Q306 Mr Malik: Good morning, Home
Secretary. The police and you yourself have said that the nature
of the terrorist threat has actually changed because of this phenomenon
of suicide bombers. Indeed, I have said it myself as well in the
past. The large majority of recent cases have not involved suicide
bombers, so what exactly has changed?
Mr Clarke: There are a number
of aspects of terrorism which have changed fundamentally. The
first is the nature of the terrorist organisations. I think what
is quite important is to distinguish between campaigns in the
20th century essentially for national liberation of a variety
of other struggles in different areas, which had a clearly defined
focus and clarity about what they were seeking to achieve even
if there were methods used which you and I probably would find
unacceptable. The al-Qaeda terrorist ideology cannot be described
in that way. The 20th century struggles were essentially products
of enlightenment. The al-Qaeda struggle is essentially an attempt
to recreate a medieval form of society which is against every
value for which progressives have fought for centuries in this
world. Firstly, the origin of the terrorism is different. Secondly,
its character has been international, and is of a quite different
order from many of the terrorist issues which existed in the 20th
century; and the nature is quite different. Thirdly, the wealth
and sophistication of the terrorist organisations is, again, of
a completely different order, and with large amounts of resource
being spent in most sophisticated people and equipment to try
and deal with the threats that they have and very high levels
of organisation. 9/11 itself is a classic illustration of that
fact. The final thing is something you mentioned, which is the
question of people's readiness to kill themselves in committing
these acts, which is again different from the terrorists' struggles
of the 20th century in general in any part of the world that you
look at. I am not saying there was not accidental death, but deliberate
death takes you into a different situation and means that a different
set of criteria start to come into play because you then need
to start discussing what you do to prevent a terrorist act, rather
than what you do to bring the committer of a terrorist act to
justice and they are different questions.
Q307 Mr Malik: One or two questions
on community relations with respect to pre-charge detention. Of
those held for longer than seven days under the existing terrorism
legislation about one in three was released without charge. Will
not prolonged detention lead to a significant worsening of community
relations, particularly if people are detained for a long time
and then released?
Mr Clarke: It could do if there
were not a very clear awareness of the situation, firstly, by
the police themselves in the decisions they are taking—and
I think most people would acknowledge that the police themselves
are acutely aware of the community tension issues which you describe—but
also if the courts were not aware of it—and the fact that
there is a return to court to extend detention on a very, very
regular basis under these proposals means that courts could consider
these questions as was necessary in any agreed case. I can accept
the principle of the idea that community tension could be raised
by bad decisions about keeping somebody in detention but, firstly,
I do not think there is any reason to believe there would be bad
decisions about that, because both the police and the courts would
be constantly having that very, very much in mind; and, secondly,
I believe that if there were any evidence of community tension-raising
as a result of that people would be very responsive to that. I
think there is just one other point I need to make which is the
discussion I have had with a number of organisations (including
the Muslim Council of Britain) very directly: there is no identity
between being a terrorist and being a Muslim, they are different
things. Terrorism can come from a set of misplaced religious views
of course, including Islamist views, but they are different things.
The fact that somebody is suspected of being a terrorist is not
an attack on the Muslim community and I think that is a very,
very important distinction. There are some who try and confuse
this from all kinds of stances, but I think it is very important
to keep them separate throughout our considerations.
Q308 Mr Malik: Finally, Home Secretary,
I had the misfortune to be the Member of Parliament in a constituency
where the Leeds suicide bomber resided. It is a constituency which
has the highest BNP vote in the country and the highest number
of racial incidents reported in West Yorkshire. According to your
statistics from the Home Office 11 people were held since the
new laws came into being on 20 January 2004. Between then and
September 2005 11 people were held for the pre-charge maximum
14 days and all 11 of those people were indeed charged. I have
an Opinion piece here I just want to read to you: "872 innocent
people have been locked up for 14 days and imagine if these people,
mainly young men, had been locked up for 90 days, the equivalent
of a six-month prison sentence and then just dumped back in the
community. It's enough to tip any "normal" young man
into the realms of a radicalised fanatic". That is something
that has been published in a number of journals and newspapers.
It is actually written by one of my constituents, a Mrs Sayeeda
Hussain-Warsi who happens to be one of the vice-chairs of the
Conservative Party. Assuming that the Home Office is correct about
these 11 people and that she is indeed wrong, then does not information
of this nature seriously undermine community cohesion, undermine
confidence in the police, create unnecessary anxiety, feed victimisation
and alienation and is ultimately completely and utterly reckless
and reprehensible?
Mr Clarke: It is the first time
I have heard that particular piece, but what I do agree with very
strongly, Mr Malik, is that disinformation is more damaging in
this area than any other area of public life. It is, in my opinion,
an obligation on all those who comment and give opinions from
whatever political party, from whatever orientation, to talk about
the facts in a considered way rather than by developing misrepresentations
in any particular area. I believe that is an obligation on all
of us in democratic politics and one that is particularly pressing
at this time.
Q309 Mr Spring: Home Secretary, I
will not ask you recall your own conversations—
Mr Clarke: I dream them actually!
Q310 Mr Spring: I think civil servants
traditionally have been there to listen in and that has always
been the practice. The point I wanted to lead onto is this whole
question of intercept evidence because I think it was in October
last year you indicated this matter was under review, but in the
submission you gave us you talked about it not being a silver
bullet. You talked about the fact that any changes to the law
which you thought were actually the disbenefits outweighed the
benefits. It is interesting to note that civil liberties organisations
actually have in general no problem with this, and of course it
is very widely spread as a practice in other parts of the world.
I would just like to ask two questions, and one is a general one:
given the fact that there is a lot of interest in this subject,
and there has been a lot of argument about this, I am just curious
to know why in coming to the conclusion you did you have done
so rather quietly? Having promised a review, we have not heard
much about your actual reasons in the public domain. The second
question I just wanted to put to you as an adjunct to that, I
wonder if you could confirm my understanding, which may be inaccurate,
that we are actually, in cooperation with other intelligence services,
happy to use intercept evidence which they have garnered as part
of the information that we receive from these security agencies
but we do not do it ourselves? I wonder if you could answer those
two points.
Mr Clarke: Firstly, I have a standard
response when anybody asks if any particular measure has stopped
any particular act, which is to say there is no silver bullet
which solves everything, and I believe that is the case. If there
were a silver bullet we would all agree to it, it would all happen
and we could stop all terrorism. The question is a balance of
judgment whether, in general, particular measures would help or
hinder. Secondly, I do not accept that I have behaved, on interception,
in a quiet way. I have made statements to Parliament about it
from early 2005 onwards where I have tried to set out as clearly
as I can the Government thinking on these issues and it essentially
comes down to three points. Firstly, we agree in principle that
if we could have intercept as evidence available that would be
helpful for law enforcement in a variety of different reasons;
but, secondly, there are two problems we have not solved: the
first problem we have not solved is how we make that available
without making the defendants aware of the way in which we have
collected that intelligence which could be damaging to our overall
intelligence interests; and the second is how we deal with the
issue of disclosure, and the fact that the defence would always
say, if there was one particular intercept which was given in
evidence, "Can we see the records of every other part of
intercept that you have", which means you have a massive,
massive data collection issue around it in a particular way. Do
we think these two problems are soluble? They may be, particularly
as technology is changing so rapidly in this area. That is why
I committed to the House to conduct the review we are having at
the moment and to report by the end of this year, in the hope
that we can get agreement on this. I perfectly understand, Mr
Spring, and you are right to say that there are a lot of people
who think this is the right way to go, and it has benefits in
their cases and other regimes and other jurisdictions where it
can work. The two problems I have given are real problems and
not imagined problems. They are not quietly addressed. As I have
said, I have said them to the House explicitly in terms on a number
of occasions starting from early 2005 so they are not secret but
they are real issues and we are working to try and solve them.
On using other countries' intercept, I am afraid I am not familiar
with the detail. I do not want to be misleading in what I am saying
and perhaps had better drop a note to the Committee about it.
[1]My
understanding is that you are right, but I do not want to confirm
you are right without being absolutely clear on the legal position
about intercept again by other people being used in our courts.
If you will excuse me, I will write to you.
Q311 Mr Spring: Thank you for that
answer, but I think it is our understanding and I do not want
to pre-empt what you are going to say.
Mr Clarke: It is my understanding.
Q312 Mr Spring: If that is the case
then I think it does obviously beg a question. On your point about
the review, and I understand that you want to proceed and do this
in a comprehensive way, although other countries, fully democratic
countries, certainly have no problems with this, I simply point
out that you have made this point several times, Home Secretary,
about how anxious you are to listen to the police, and when the
police indicate they have a desire for something you react. I
would just mention to you that we have had ACPO in front of us
and they have made it clear that as far as intercept evidence
is concerned, they would like to move on. We did specifically
say this.
Mr Clarke: I do know that, Mr
Spring, but it is my political opponents who have put the charge
that I unthinkingly do whatever the police say, not I. I argue
that I have a duty as Home Secretary, and Parliament has a duty,
to listen to what the police say and take it seriously, which
I do; but I do not say that simply because the police say something
it is our job as Parliament to do it.
Q313 Mr Spring: We will be looking
forward to your comments on the use of intercept evidence, and
I am sure that will help inform your ultimate view. Could I just
move on to one last aspect away from intercept evidence, which
is the whole issue of interviewing suspects. I think it has been
something of a revelation to members of the Committee about how
the actual process of interviewing suspects is obviously a very
important but very small part of the whole process of actually
garnering evidence. Given the fact that this is the case, and
we have taken comments from people like Lord Carlisle and the
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, is the point of extended
detention to allow time for the police to gather other evidence?
Given the fact that it does now seem clear—as far as interviewing
is concerned, it appears for a variety of reasons to offer limited
value in these investigations, is that the logic?
Mr Clarke: I think both Mr Hayman
and Mr Clarke in evidence to you stated that the purpose was not
simply to question but also to gather evidence in the way you
have said, and that certainly is the case. That is why, when the
Chairman asked me how it was that I found the position compelling,
when you look at the gathering of evidence from encryption, or
the gathering of evidence from what comes from overseas intelligence
agencies, or the gathering of evidence from enormous forensic
sweeps which take place, it does take time for that evidence to
arrive. It is the collection of that evidence which becomes a
further factor which can then inform further interrogation in
those circumstances. It is not a sense of perpetual interrogation
over X number of days; but a sense of holding somebody who can
then be asked about new evidence that arises following the time
it takes to gather that new evidence.
Q314 Chairman: Just to pursue that
point. We have been told by a variety of sources that the vast
majority of people are simply going to be advised not to say anything—a
perfectly reasonable response under our system for a defence solicitor
to say that; and therefore changes in the law about that implying
some level of guilt have no effect on the court whatever so people
are advised to say nothing. Even if you do find other forensic
evidence the reality is that those in detention are not likely
to speak, are they?
Mr Clarke: It depends what you
find, does it not? If one finds forensic evidence that clearly
links through DNA, for example, a particular individual to a particular
scene of crime that is so explicit and so direct that I certainly
do not assume that there would be no response if an individual
was questioned. I know that the lawyers we are talking about always
advise their clients to say nothing so committed are they to the
spirit of justice; but the fact is I do not think we can assume
that that will be what carries through on each occasion; it depends
on the evidence which is gathered.
Q315 Chairman: You would not challenge
the evidence we have had, including the police evidence, that
certainly those they regard as leaders or directors of terrorism
are very unlikely to answer questions in this way?
Mr Clarke: No, I would not challenge
that evidence. The balance of your question is right. It is obviously
the case that people are advised to keep absolutely silent and
often do so. I am only saying they do not always do that but I
am not seeking to challenge the overall balance of the evidence
you have had from the police on this which is more informed than
mine.
Q316 Mr Browne: Home Secretary, moving
on to some of the alternatives to increased detention that have
been mulled over by Parliament and elsewhere during this process:
resources and money. You yourself have rejected this as a complete
solution and have cited the police in particular saying that in
the later states of investigation the events are quite often sequential
and, therefore, it is difficult to do several stages of the investigation
simultaneously. Nonetheless there is still a body of opinion that
believes that logically if you double the number of people searching
through computers or any other form of evidence you are likely
to reach the needle in the haystack quicker than if you have fewer
people undertaking that task. Are you happy and confident that
we have sufficient people and sufficient money being put into
anti-terrorism that that is not an alternative to having extended
periods of detention?
Mr Clarke: I am confident of that
as you ask it. I would always say more resources could be helpful.
I think this Government has allocated record resources because
the needs are so great, and the Chancellor has been very positive
on those matters. I would never say that we would not benefit
from more resources—that is always the case; but the qualification
you put in your question, i.e. the extent to which we reduce the
need for detention, I agree with you, that that argument is not
made. I think there are cases where more resources being thrown
at a problem have helped to solve it quicker—the needle
in a haystack model. It is also the case, as you also said in
your question, that there is not a direct relationship between
the amount of resource you put onto the task and the speed with
which you crack it because there are sequential issues, as you
rightly say, which mean you cannot just say putting more in solves
the problem. I do not believe that producing infinite resources
would lead to a state of affairs where the detention issues were
not still necessary.
Q317 Mr Browne: Just as a supplementary
to that, it is a personal question really, you told Parliament
that, in order to protect the British public from terrorism, it
was necessary to detain suspects for 90 days. We are now in a
position where they are detained for less than a third of that
period as a maximum, which would lead anybody to conclude that
you are presiding over a system where the public is at greater
risk than you would wish the public to be. There is an onus, is
there not, on your department to look even more searchingly at
alternatives, given that there is this inbuilt risk in the legislation
which you have been unable to prevent despite your best efforts?
Mr Clarke: Yes, but I think the
onus is even more on those who voted against the proposal for
90 days to examine their consciences on the situation, since it
was their decisions which led us to a state of affairs where we
are less well protected than we should be. I feel happy with myself
on that. Those who did not vote for the 90 days have to ask themselves
if they are happy with that.
Q318 Mr Browne: But we are less well
protected than we should be at the moment?
Mr Clarke: Yes, in my opinion,
as I have argued throughout on the 90 days.
Q319 Mr Browne: The other subject
I wish to briefly explore was raised by the then Home Affairs
spokesman for my party, the Liberal Democrats, which was the possibility
or the option of charging suspects with a lesser offence—the
Al Capone strategy as I think it is going to be known by some.
While you were gathering evidence, while the police were gathering
evidence on the more substantial issues relating to terrorism
this approach was rejected. Can you expand your thoughts on that,
particularly now that Parliament has limited the period of detention
to 28 days rather than 90?
Mr Clarke: Firstly, I think it
is fundamentally dishonest. To try and detain somebody on the
basis which is not the basis on which you are actually concerned
about them is dishonest; and I think the Al Capone strategy of
attacking serious and organised crime through the Inland Revenue
is not necessarily the right way to do it. Secondly, I do not
think it actually works, because if there are questions of people
who are potentially committing terrorist offences or preparing
to commit terrorist offences a lesser charge will not do. It is
true that we are assisted by the new charges which are in this
current bill, which gives us some possibilities where we may be
able better to deal with that. You can abstract from the situation
that you need to charge people with the charges which you are
actually interest in, in these cases; because it may very well
be that they are guilty of a particular charge but they are not
guilty of anything else at all, so there is not another charge
which is available. To hypothecate your whole strategy for dealing
with terrorism on the basis there may be some other charge—benefit
fraud or whatever it might happen to be—I think is a mistaken
view. I think integrity in this whole process requires one to
face up to the issue. That was an argument I made to Mark Oaten
but he unfortunately did not agree.
1 Ev 102 Back
|
