Examination of Witnesses (Questions 3-19)
RT
HON JOHN
REID, MP, SIR
DAVID NORMINGTON,
KCB, MS URSULA
BRENNAN
24 APRIL
2007
Q3 Chairman: Good afternoon and welcome
to the press and public who have come into this public hearing
of the Committee. There were one or two areas in terms of terrorism
issues where the Home Secretary wished to brief the Committee
in private so hence the slight delay in the originally published
time of starting. Home Secretary, we are very grateful to you,
to the Permanent Secretary and to Ms Brennan for coming here this
afternoon and responding to the promise that you made to the House
a few weeks ago that you would come at the earliest possible opportunity
to talk about the reorganisation of the Home Office. I know that
you would like to make a few opening remarks so can I invite you
to do that and then we will go into the questioning.
John Reid: Thank you. Obviously
we are here to discuss the refocusing of the Home Office on the
huge challenges of today's world, in particular on mass migration,
international as well as domestic crime, antisocial behaviour
and counter-terrorism. In all of those areas it has been a fairly
hectic period since you asked me first of all about those matters
in the House. Last week I chaired the first meeting of the National
Security Board which will now meet weekly. This morning I attended
the first meeting of the Committee on Security and Terrorism which
was chaired by the Prime Minister. Four days ago the then director
general of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, retired and her successor,
Jonathan Evans, took over. Perhaps I can just use this opportunity
to place on record my appreciation and I am sure the appreciation
of everyone in this country for all of the work that Eliza did,
particularly in the last ten years as deputy and then as director
general of MI5. Tomorrow we will start the recruitment process
for the director general of the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism
which is to be established in the Home Office. That will include
obviously advertisements in the press for that. Today we have
seen six arrests, five in London and one in Luton, under the Terrorism
Act 2000 in connection with inciting others to commit acts of
terrorism overseas and terrorist fund raising. Obviously any details
of that operation are for the police. This is a further indication
of the continuing efforts, energies and vigilance of our police
and security services in what is a very uncertain world. That
is the purpose of the refocusing of the Home Office. If we had
to look at all of the changes in the world and choose one defining
characteristic which affects the role of the Home Office it is
the change in our world at a global level and at a local level
from static communities and a static world to a highly mobile
world. Globally, the Cold War period where borders were inviolable,
where tensions were suppressed, where travel was restricted, where
the awareness of other countries was limited, has given way to
a post-Cold War period where cheap transportation and the decline
of the Soviet empire have allowed the development of mass migration
on a scale that was hitherto unprecedented. With that mass migration
comes the problem of international crime and international terrorism.
At a local level, the changes to our local communities which we
are so concerned about because of the reduction in the glue that
holds communities together are also a reflection of the change
from relatively static local communities, where people stayed
in the same area, in the same social class, with the same partners,
with extended families, probably in the same job in large communities
over a long period of time. That has given way to problems associated
with people because the societies themselves have become more
transient and more mobile. Globally and locally there has been
a huge change. That is why the extent of those challenges in that
changing world has led us to refocus the Home Office towards those
grave issues of tackling antisocial behaviour and crime domestically
and international crime, managing immigration in a world of mass
migration in a fair and effective fashion and also to counter
terrorism in a world where the terrorists continually up their
game in order to threaten and attack this country, to refocus
in order that we can keep apace with that development. The over-arching
mission for the new Home Office is to provide a framework of protection
in which opportunity can flourish. It is the protection and security
of the individual, of the community and of the nation. As a result
of that, we have refocused and realigned those elements of the
criminal justice system which do not play the central role in
that into a Ministry of Justice which in turn balances the new
role of the Home Office and about which the Lord Chancellor has
previously answered some detailed questions. That is the big picture
on that and I will do what I can to give answers to the Members
of the Committee who have queries on that.
Q4 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed for setting the scene so clearly. It appears to the Committee
from what you have said this afternoon and what you have said
in other places that things that you have seen in the eight or
ten months since you became Home Secretary, particularly in the
area of counter-terrorism, have convinced you of the need to make
the sort of changes that you have brought forward. Can we though
explore the sheer scale of the changes that you have proposed
and which you persuaded the government to accept? For at least
150 years, if not longer, the defining role of the Home Office
and indeed the defining role of Home Secretaries was the criminal
justice system and particularly criminal law and sentencing. It
was that in which Home Secretaries said, "This is going to
be the balance between individual liberty and security in our
society." You as a Home Secretary have almost insisted that
that role, the key role of all your predecessors, has gone to
the new Ministry of Justice. Can you explain to us why you believe
that such a radical redefining of the Home Secretary's role—in
fact, what for most people looks like a major shedding of power
and responsibility—was made necessary by what you have seen
over the last eight months?
John Reid: First of all, the main
responsibility of government is the protection of the life and
liberties of our citizens and they are under threat from terrorism
as never before. Secondly, I believe that liberty and the protection
of it are indivisible but they are two different aspects of attaining
the sort of life and democracy that we want to maintain in this
country. As the world changes so we must change our response to
that world. The way in which we retain those values—that
is, the protection of the nation and the protection not only of
the life of the nation but the protection of the lifestyle and
liberties of the nation—has to respond to the threats to
both of those from people who would take the lives of our citizens.
We have seen it already in the streets of our capital and in the
subways. We know that there has been plot after plot to do exactly
that, foiled over the past few years. If we are to do that in
an adequate form, I believe that the balance of a Ministry of
Justice and an enhanced capacity to protect the personal community
at the national level are both required. That is basically the
starting point which is an analysis of the real world. As the
world changes, we have to change our response. Can I give you
an analogy? For probably half a century or more, the main role
of the British Armed Forces was to defend on the ground in central
Europe by heavy weaponry against the threat. The threat has changed
radically and therefore we conducted a strategic defence review
and with the same purpose, which was the defence of the country,
we have entirely changed from a static to a mobile defence posture,
from one in which the war would come to us to where we have to
go to the problems and where we have taken heavy weaponry and
replaced it by highly flexible, mobile weaponry. Why? Not because
the previous posture or position was wrong for the time but because
a new world demands a new response. I am doing exactly the same
as I have done in any other department I have been in, analysing
the world and saying how do we best respond to it. This is the
response I have come up with. The aim remains the same and that
is to protect the life and the lifestyle and liberty of the people
of this country.
Q5 Chairman: We will look in a bit
more detail at some of the counter-terrorism issues as we go through
the questions. Nobody on this Committee would deny that that job
has to be done effectively and it is a very important part of
government but nonetheless the Home Office has been stripped of
what has historically been its core function and it has gone to
another department, the Ministry of Justice. I am intrigued as
to whether you can think of a serving, senior politician who has
in your way voluntarily insisted on getting rid of what, to all
his predecessors, was the central part of the job.
John Reid: I am not sure that
the way that has been portrayed is true. First of all, one of
my immediate predecessors, Jack Straw, has found this an intelligent
way to respond to the world as we see it. None of those before
that period—and I have a high respect for my predecessors
in the previous government—have any experience of this level
of threat because there has been a huge growth in that threat
over the past five years, far less the past ten years. It is growing
pretty well exponentially. I understand that the objection of
one of my predecessors which was expressed initially was that
by splitting the Home Office I diminished my own political clout.
I do not regard that as a justifiable reason for keeping something
together. I think my immediate predecessor takes a different view
from me on it. That is a matter of judgment. It is perfectly reasonable
I think to think that people of equal intelligence look at the
same facts with equal sincerity and reach different judgments.
All I can tell you is that my own view—and I speak as someone
who spent seven years in Opposition dealing with security and
defence matters as well as being Northern Ireland Secretary, Armed
Forces Minister and Defence Secretary before I became Home Secretary—is
that the level of threat that we are facing today and the rate
of growth requires that we, in national security terms to protect
this country, refocus our efforts through the Home Office in a
way that does not allow that department adequately to do that
as well as to do prisons, probation, criminal justice and so on.
There is also a positive reason for putting them with the DCA
and a coherent Ministry of Justice. That is my judgment on it.
That was what I recommended after some thought with the ad
hoc group on this matter, which included all of my important
Cabinet colleagues, in a recommendation to the Prime Minister.
He spent several months considering it and then took the decision.
Q6 Mr Clappison: I want to ask you
about the costs and benefits involved but on this last point which
you have just made your two immediate predecessors knew all about
the changes in the world which you have described to us today;
and yet they have both clearly said that this split is the wrong
thing to do. Do you not think that members of the public would
find it slightly concerning that your two immediate predecessors
from your party have come out so strongly against splitting the
Home Office and in particular your immediate predecessor who said
that it was irresponsible?
John Reid: I have just responded
to that point before you asked it.
Mr Clappison: You mentioned the new world
order. Do you think—
Chairman: I do not want to cut you short
but we are short of time. I think I ploughed that furrow.
Q7 Mr Clappison: There may be other
things you agree on with your predecessor but not this. Can I
ask you about your cost benefit analysis for this? Was there any
cost benefit analysis made for this?
John Reid: The cost analysis was
done by the Cabinet Office. The benefits in terms of advantages
and disadvantages to the protection of the nation and the balance
of security and liberty were obviously weighed up. If you mean
in any conventional business sense can we evaluate the benefits
from the focus on national protection and national security, it
is very difficult to do that in a conventional sense but the costs
were examined by the Cabinet Office and the benefits and disadvantages
of focusing more on national security, personal security, policing
antisocial behaviour and so on obviously were.
Q8 Mr Clappison: What will the cost
of the change be from the present arrangements to the new arrangements?
John Reid: The cost to the Home
Office will be negligible. There is no rebranding to be done;
there is no removing to be done. There are two sets of costs.
The first is associated with the new arrangements and from the
point of view of the Home Office that is very small indeed. There
are no new buildings to be found; there is no great, new technological
requirement or expense. I can ask the Permanent Secretary to give
you that. In terms of the build-up of the counter-terrorist capacity
inside the Home Office, there will obviously be a cost attached
to that. It depends at what stage you stop increasing the capacity
and the numbers but a reasonable estimate of that would be of
the order of £15 million for the personnel because it is
mainly personnel. In terms of the reorganisation itself, it is
very small indeed.
Q9 Mr Clappison: The total cost is
£15 million plus what?
John Reid: No, it is not the total
cost. The total cost of the reorganisation is minimal. The total
cost of the added capacity which you will get later from building,
as I showed you from the slides, a new counter-terrorist joint
strategic centre of information and so on is all added capacity.
That is not the cost of splitting up the Home Office.
Q10 Mrs Cryer: Can I ask you three
questions about legislation? At the moment any government department
seeking to introduce a new criminal offence apparently has to
seek the permission of the Home Office. After 9 May will that
mean that the Home Office will have to seek permission from the
Justice Department?
John Reid: What happens at present
is that the Home Office is a gate keeper for the criminal justice
system in that sense but I would not want you to think that that
happens without continual consultation between ourselves, the
Department of Constitutional Affairs and, as it happens, the Attorney
General's office. There is an organisation called the National
Criminal Justice Board with which you will be familiar. There
is also the Office of Criminal Justice Reform of which Ursula
is the chief executive and there is therefore constant liaison.
We are effectively the gate keeper for that. What will happen
afterwards is that if we, say, wanted a law we have the lead on
crime, crime reduction and prevention. If we wanted a law that
we thought was necessary in order to effect crime reduction, we
would go through the gate keeper of the new Ministry of Justice
on that in the same way that the Department for Transport, if
it wanted a new law to reduce traffic congestion or death on the
roads, would go through a gate keeper as well. This is all pretty
much part of the process of clearing with colleagues inside government
that goes on whoever is the gate keeper.
Q11 Mrs Cryer: Can I ask you about
the Terrorism Bill? Will the Terrorism Bill remain a Home Office
Bill? Presuming it does, will you still enable this Committee
to have a prior view of that Bill? I know that you do not intend
to have a draft Bill but will this Committee have some part to
play in the preparation of the Terrorism Bill? What can you tell
us about the contents?
John Reid: Let me take the Terrorism
Bill in its processes. Yes, I am happy to give the reassurance
that I will discuss this in this Committee. The tendency in the
media has been to concentrate on one issue which is whether or
not we extend the 28 days. Let me be absolutely plain because
it has not always been clear in the media. I have explained to
a number of Members of this Committee individually. On that question
I will come to this Committee but I will also discuss it with
Opposition parties because wherever possible I want to try and
reach a national consensus on national security. If on that issue
it proves that, notwithstanding the experience of the past year,
there is no such national consensus on that issue, then I will
not proceed with it.
Q12 Mr Winnick: Good.
John Reid: That is the spirit
in which I will bring this here and, on that issue, to the Opposition
parties as well. I do feel that I have an obligation as the Minister
in charge of the police, when they think it merits discussion,
to bring it and discuss it with colleagues inside and outside
of government. On the other issues, I will also bring them to
the Committee where possible and I will discuss with the Committee
ways in which we can enhance, commensurate with getting a consensus,
our counter-terrorist capacity. On Bills in general, it may be
useful if I just go through them. There will be joint handling
of the Criminal Justice Bill and we are in discussion with our
colleagues in the Ministry of Justice designate.
Q13 Chairman: There is not a procedure
in the House for having a Bill which is a joint Bill. It will
be a Justice Ministry Bill, presumably?
John Reid: That is what we are
discussing at the moment. I do not want to pre-empt those discussions.
I am happy if there is a joint approach to it. I am happy if the
Ministry of Justice lead it. They may be happy if we lead it as
well. Those discussions are ongoing but on the NOMS Bill and the
Corporate Manslaughter Bill they would shift across to the Ministry
of Justice. The Serious Crime Bill will be led by the Home Office
on the other hand. If we ask about the ownership, if the Bills
are serious crime, gun crime or antisocial behaviour which contain
changes to the criminal law, there are also provisions—perhaps
matters relating to the police or CDRPs—and they will be
a Home Office Bill. The Home Office in that context will remain
responsible for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I hope
that clarifies the position on the various Bills.
Q14 Mrs Cryer: Within this parliamentary
session is the Home Office likely to introduce further Bills?
In the Queen's Speech there was the Criminal Justice Bill. Is
that going to be a Home Office Bill or will it be a Justice Department
Bill? Is there a likelihood of there being any other legislation
emanating from the Home Office in this parliamentary session?
John Reid: I do not want to pre-empt
the discussions but it is likely to be a Justice Bill. It will
be a joint Bill but we have not finally agreed who will lead in
that because we are working through the details prior to 9 May.
It is likely that the Criminal Justice Bill will be a Justice
Bill.
Q15 Chairman: It is quite clear that
with the current personnel in government and the existing work
that is in the pipeline there is going to be a very close working
relationship between the Home Office and the new Ministry of Justice.
Is it not likely, if we are looking four or five years down the
line where the Ministry of Justice clearly has the final say on
criminal justice legislation, on criminal law, that we will have
seen a very significant shift in power from the current Home Office
to the new Ministry of Justice because of the arrangements that
you have outlined to us today?
John Reid: This presupposes that
there is a zero sum gain here and that, if you move something
from this side, then the other side benefits and this one must
lose. We are adding capacity overall. What I would urge you to
do is to accept that our life and liberties and the protection
of them are indivisible. They are not alternatives. It is not
a zero sum gain and we are adding capacity both to the Ministry
of Justice and what it does and also to the Home Office because
we are adding attention, focus, energies, efforts, probably personnel
and resources as well to the whole fight for personal community
and national security which is necessary in today's circumstances.
The second thing is this: the thing that has really made the criminal
justice system effective I think over the past three years, coming
up to four years, is the establishment of the Office of Criminal
Justice Reform and the National Criminal Justice Board. We have
recognised that there is a disparate number of elements that go
together to make an effective criminal justice system. It is no
good putting more police on the streets and catching more criminals
unless you have the court system that can process those cases,
the prosecutor system that can handle them adequately and the
prisons in which to put them. What that means is that those departments,
although they are different, have to work in a more integrated
fashion. It is that integration that gives us strength, not where
the various elements repose. That integration is going to stay
as it is at the moment through the National Criminal Justice Board,
chaired alternately by the Home Secretary and the new Ministry
of Justice. That will not change at all. That is what gives it
effect. What is being added is a similar integrated fashion to
combat terrorism. That is in the national interest as well.
Q16 Chairman: I was merely trying
to establish whether the ambitious, young politician who comes
in at the next general election will aim to become a Home Secretary
or a Minister of Justice 10 or 15 years later.
John Reid: I will make sure since
I go through all of them.
Mr Winnick: The Home Secretary is not
an ambitious politician.
Q17 Mrs Dean: Could you tell us what
the functions of the new Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism
will be and what deficiencies in the existing system will it address?
Could you also say which of its functions are new and which will
be transferred from other departments?
John Reid: The ultimate objective
of this is to enhance our fight against terrorism and our state
of national security. The functions which it will bring which
will enhance our present capacity to do that are better continual
ministerial oversight, drive and participation to supplement the
efforts of our agencies; secondly, an enhanced strategic centre
capable of long term planning and appraisals to counter what is
probably going to be a generational struggle. That is length in
terms of foresight. Thirdly, integration of effort, bringing together
the capacities and energies of Home Office, Foreign Office, Communities
and Local Government who are engaged in local communities and
defence so that you get an integrated response to what is becoming
a seamless threat. Fourthly, the central role of the battle for
ideas and values. In other words, better oversight, longer strategic
planning and thinking, better integrated response to a threat
that is now foreign, domestic and defence orientated and the central
recognition and capacity to deal with the battle for values and
ideas. That to me is a big step forward in what is a continuing
struggle between the terrorists and ourselves to get ahead of
each other. What area does it take from other departments? None.
It is all new capacity. It does not change the lead. The agencies
which previously answered to the department, DIS, Defence Intelligence
Services, answers to defence; SIS answers to foreign affairs;
GCHQ is still to the Foreign Office and MI5 is to me and the Home
Office.
Q18 Mrs Dean: With all that, does
that not suggest that in reality the responsibility for countering
terrorism remains split between government departments much as
before?
John Reid: No, it does not remain
split as before because one of the functions of the new centre
is to integrate the effort of those discrete departments. That
is because, unlike previous threats, this threat runs through
foreign affairs, domestic affairs, defence affairs and local community
affairs. You only have to look at some of these threats to see
that people are either being directed from or influenced from
abroad or that people are leaving this country, going abroad,
getting training, which brings a domestic and an overseas element.
Then they are going on perhaps to Iraq or Afghanistan to attack
our troops, which brings in a defence dimension. That is why we
needed not only better strategic thinking but a more integrated
response to what is a seamless threat now. At heart, however it
expresses itself, whether in military action abroad, whether in
community engagement, whether through the security services, it
is a battle about ideas and values. Therefore, that is a necessary
component of the new centre as I described earlier.
Q19 Mrs Dean: You mentioned earlier
that tomorrow you start the process for recruiting the head of
OSCT. When do you think that appointment will be able to be made?
John Reid: I hope that that will
be made within six or seven weeks. This is something that has
been in a sense in the thinking of people for several years. It
is a process that culminated in me being asked to carry out the
analysis in September of last year. I put the recommendations
from the ad hoc committee to the Prime Minister in December
of last year. He considered them and we made the announcement
at the end of March. It will effectively take place from 9 May
and I hope it will be embedded in terms of the framework, the
blue print, by the end of June, certainly by July. That is my
aim. Anything after that, on the assumptions on which we all work
in the second half of this year, will be a responsibility initially
of the present Prime Minister and then of the incoming Prime Minister.
| 
