Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
RT HON
JACQUI SMITH
MP AND SIR
DAVID NORMINGTON
KCB
24 JULY 2007
Q1 Chairman: Home Secretary, may I welcome
you to the Home Affairs Committee. This is the first time obviously
since you were appointed to the position. We are very pleased
to see you. You will not be surprised to know we have quite a
few questions relating to your department. I do not know if you
would like to make a short statement first.
Jacqui Smith: Yes, please. Could
I also introduce—although I suspect this Committee needs
no introduction—Sir David Normington, the Permanent Under-Secretary
at the Home Office.
Q2 Chairman: Sir David has appeared
before.
Jacqui Smith: Could I start by
saying how pleased I am to be in front of the Committee and also
how honoured I am to be taking on the role of Home Secretary.
I said on the very first day that I took over that it is hard
to imagine a greater honour for somebody elected by the British
people than to have that responsibility for ensuring the protection
of our borders and our communities in order that we can get on
with our lives. I am also very much looking forward to working
with the Committee. Perhaps I might say a few things about both
my early priorities and where I see those going, although obviously
the vast bulk of the time clearly should be spent on questions.
Over the last months since I have become Home Secretary I have
focused my attention on security and on crime. The events of the
first weekend and the incidents in London and Glasgow forced not
only my attention but the attention of the whole nation onto security.
It gave me a very early view about the seriousness of the threats
we face and also the very impressive work of the police and security
and intelligence services in working to prevent attacks and to
track down those who would be responsible and to minimise the
harm that they cause. Even though without that stark reminder
it would always have been right as an early priority to focus
on national security, quite rightly, John Reid, as my predecessor,
identified the need for that clearer and stronger strategy across
government for pulling together our efforts to combat terrorism.
That is why I think the development of the new Office for Security
and Counter-Terrorism gives both the Government and the nation
a very important opportunity to make sure that our efforts on
counter-terrorism are co-ordinated to raise our game in the face
of that sustained and serious threat. Setting up that office and
working with my colleagues in establishing a clearer and stronger
strategy for countering terrorism is one of my first priorities.
As part of that work, as well, alongside the tough approach to
tackling and tracing those who want to attack us, we also have
to make sure that the police and others have all the tools they
need. That is why, tomorrow, alongside a statement that the Prime
Minister will be making on security, we will be launching a consultation
on proposals to strengthen the legal framework still further.
I just want to reiterate what I said when I made my very first
statement, that I am absolutely committed to that continuing to
be an open and full debate about what measures are necessary and,
hopefully, to reach a consensus not only that crosses party lines
but that involves all of those responsible within this area for
developing that consensus and agreeing a way forward. Also, in
order to be able to reduce the threat to us over time, the area
of work that it is necessary to do, alongside colleagues in DCLG
and in the FCO, on preventing people in Britain from turning to
terrorist violence in the first place is absolutely crucial, and
it will be another of my important early priorities. Colleagues
in the Committee will know that last week we published the crime
strategy setting out the framework for work over the next three
years. Anybody who is a constituency MP knows the significance
of crime levels to all of our constituents: everything from the
blight of antisocial behaviour through to more highly publicised
murders and horrific crimes. We have, as a government, made progress:
crime has reduced by about a third, but we have made more progress
in tackling some of the lower level volume crime than in tackling
some of the most serious violence.
Q3 Chairman: I wonder, Home Secretary,
if I might intervene for just a moment. Obviously this is not
a statement to the House. There will be a lot of questions to
you on all these topics. I do not want to stop you in any way,
but perhaps you would bear in mind that all the questions will
be very relevant to what you are saying.
Jacqui Smith: Fine.
Q4 Chairman: I understand you must
leave at four o'clock.
Jacqui Smith: And I promise you,
Mr Chairman, I will not go on much longer. You are right, I spelt
out the way in which I wanted to develop that crime strategy last
week. The other important thing I wanted to say was that, whilst
it is right that I have focused on security and crime in these
early weeks, I have also looked very carefully in the department
at some of the other key challenges we need to face, and I want
to be able to say more, not only in answer to questions today
but also in the autumn about those priorities. On immigration,
for example, I think there have been some very important but encouraging
developments over the last year in terms of the way in which we
strengthen our borders, enforce our immigration laws and mange
the wider impacts of migration, but I do think we need to look
more at how we secure our borders, including the government presence
at our borders, but also at how we take forward and contribute
to the Goldsmith review of citizenship; in particular, that path
to citizenship and making clear the rights and responsibilities
around that. Linked to that, of course, I will also want to focus
on the very important contribution that I think identity management
and ID cards can make to that. In conclusion, Mr Chairman, may
I reiterate what I said at the beginning about the importance
of the partners with whom it will be necessary for us to work
in order to make progress in each of these areas. You will obviously
know that I have, for example, sent you information about the
early thinking of the development about PSAs and I would also
be very keen to continue the discussions around counter-terrorism
legislation as we go forward. It will be an important part of
my work to be able to work in partnership with the Committee.
Q5 Chairman: I am most grateful and
I am sure the Committee are, Home Secretary. I wonder if I could
start the ball rolling regarding matters which you mentioned which
obviously is on the minds of so many people; namely, the terrorism
threat to our country. Would you say that the assessment made
is much the same as, say, 12 or six months ago as to the terrorist
threat to Britain?
Jacqui Smith: The threat level
itself, at "Severe", shows us that there is, as I have
made clear since I took this job, a most serious and sustained
level of threat from terrorism. As others have made clear, the
intelligence services and others now are facing a situation where,
as they have said, they think there are now perhaps 2,000 individuals
in whom they are interested, 200 networks, and a number of ongoing
potential plots. Those are figures which are in the public domain
and which I think tend to identify the level of seriousness of
the threat we are facing. That is why I think it is right that
an early priority of our work and of the Prime Minister's has
been being absolutely clear that we have in place the necessary
infrastructure, the necessary resources and the necessary legislation
in order to respond to the nature of that threat.
Q6 Chairman: Do you take a pessimistic
view, if I could describe it as such, that Britain is going to
face an ongoing terrorist threat for some years to come?
Jacqui Smith: I take a realistic
view that there is a serious and sustained level of threat, but
even my early experience of working within the department and
across government and with other agencies suggests to me that
we already have a robust response in terms of both the investigation
and some of the other areas of work that we have put in place.
The fact, for example, that we have doubled the resources available
to working in this particular area is all very important preparation,
but I also believe, as the Prime Minister will make clear tomorrow,
that we need to maintain vigilance and in some areas increase
our work in order to ensure that we counter the threat, not only
in terms of the threat level but in terms of other public statements
that people have made, that is serious and sustained.
Q7 Chairman: Britain faced 30 years
of IRA terror, let alone that which happened in Northern Ireland
itself from Republicans and Loyalists. Talking about 20 or 30
years, would that be a fairly pessimistic scenario for facing
the present terrorist threat?
Jacqui Smith: I know that others
have talked about a period of years. I certainly think this is
a challenge that is likely to face us over a significant period
of time. I am not sure that it is particularly helpful for me
today to start estimating the number of years that I think that
is. My priority needs to be confidence, in relation to the nature
and seriousness of the threat that we face, that we are at this
moment in time taking the action necessary in order to put us
in as strong a position as possible to be able, as I suggested
in my introduction, firstly, to be able to prevent those people
who might be considering turning to terrorist violence from doing
so, to protect our country, to pursue those who we believe either
have undertaken or are trying to undertake terrorist work, and
to make sure that the resources, the legal capacity, the staffing
and the work across government that we have in place is sufficient
in order to tackle that. But it is a serious and sustained threat
and that, I think, is why it is right that it was an early priority
not only of mine but also of the Prime Minister's.
Q8 Chairman: Obviously I can understand
your reluctance to put any question of years on it—because
who can tell? Neither you nor anyone else for that matter. But
would it not be right simply to say it is likely to be longer
rather than shorter?
Jacqui Smith: In describing it
as both serious and sustained we are recognising that this is
an issue that is both growing in terms of its seriousness and
will take a period of time in order to solve.
Q9 Mr Streeter: Thank you, Chairman.
Home Secretary, you just gave us an indication of the scale of
the threat. I know that you have talked about 2,000 individuals
possibly being treated as suspects as being involved in Islamic
terrorism. About nine months ago, the previous Director General
of MI5 thought 1600 was the number. That is a jump of 400 people
in nine months. How do we account for that? Is that new people
coming in? Is that young British people becoming radicalised?
What is the explanation for the increase in numbers?
Jacqui Smith: You are right that
that does imply an increase from the previous figure of 1600.
As I said, that figure is associated with an analysis that suggests
there were around 200 groupings or networks and about 30 plots
that police and security services are working to contend with.
There is a certain element, as well, of looking at the success
that the police and security services have had in disrupting plots
which gives us an idea of the seriousness of that threat as well.
If you consider that security services and police have obstructed
six plots since July 2005, including the alleged plot to target
aircraft last August, that gives you a feeling for the seriousness
of the threat that we are facing. In response to your specific
question, I emphasised at the beginning and we emphasise in the
cross-government work that absolutely crucial in our counter-terrorism
strategy is the need to prevent those who might be likely to turn
to terrorism from both wanting to and being able to become radicalised
and turn to terrorism. It is precisely because that is a very
serious part of what is likely to lead to an increased pool of
those who could turn to terrorist violence that, specifically,
I do not think it is possible and nor in some ways desirable necessarily
to go into detail about where people might be coming from to go
into that pool, but the response to that, it seems to me, has
to be both domestic work around that—what we would call
prevent work—and also work internationally and with our
partners to ensure that we are tackling what might be some of
the prompts for people moving into that pool on an international
level as well.
Q10 Mr Streeter: That takes me nicely
into my second question, which is about links between terrorism
in this country and British terrorists and internationally and
foreign terrorists. What current information do we have about
those links? A recent report suggested that al-Qaeda may even
be strengthening internationally. What would you say about that?
Jacqui Smith: You obviously would
not expect me to go into details on specific intelligence about
links internationally, but, to go back to what I said previously,
the challenge is both in terms of the work we are doing domestically
on tackling radicalisation and those who are likely to turn to
terrorism, and, also, the way in which that could be co-ordinated
across government internationally.
Q11 Mrs Cryer: Home Secretary, are
you in a position to tell us whether the police and security services
are getting more help than was the case from the Muslim community
so far as intelligence is concerned about possible terrorist activities?
Jacqui Smith: If we look at analysis
of the public response, let us say, to the recent incidents in
London and Glasgow, I was very encouraged and the police officers
were also encouraged, in terms of what they have reported to me
about community reaction to those events, by the very common view
that there was condemnation across communities for acts which
had the potential to cause serious death and injury to people.
That is important in encouraging the coming together of a whole
range of people who share the view that I tried to express and
which others expressed that those people who are willing to turn
to terrorism are really outside the common values that we share.
I think there is an understanding across all our community and
communities about the extent to which that is the case. That is,
of course, as I think you are suggesting in your question, an
important prerequisite if all of us, as members of the public,
are going to be able to be enlisted in tackling that small number
of people who want to turn to terrorism. It comes not only from
a requirement to provide intelligence but also from a requirement
for all of us to be vigilant, both about specific terrorist threats
but also about suggestions within our communities that some individuals
might be turning to terrorist activity. A prerequisite for ensuring
that happens is an understanding, which, as I have suggested,
from the last incidents is there, but this is a threat against
our way of life as British citizens and as people who take those
shared values very, very seriously. There has been the encouraging
suggestion, not just since the most recent incidents but over
recent years, that there is a clear understanding that that is
the case.
Q12 Mrs Cryer: So we are getting
help from the Muslim communities but you cannot be too precise
about it. I am really asking: Has the situation improved over
what it was a few months ago?
Jacqui Smith: There is a continuing
need both for public vigilance and for people being willing to
come forward with information but I think the public manifestations
over the last few months have been very encouraging about people's
willingness to do that.
Q13 Mrs Cryer: Are you able to comment
on the degree of agitation by extremist Muslims within our universities
by students from overseas? If that is the case, if they are causing
problems, have any students been deported as yet?
Jacqui Smith: The first thing
to say is that there has obviously been some concern amongst other
areas as well about the extent to which universities may be a
basis for radicalisation. That, of course, is one of the reasons
why action has already been taken by the former DfES in terms
of information and raising these issues with universities. I think
it is also worth remembering, however, that sometimes there has
been the experience of students who have come from overseas making
that very important argument that you can hold very strong religious
views without that necessarily implying a shift to violence. I
am trying to say that I think we need to be a bit careful that
we do not associate all foreign students with being part of a
process of radicalisation and turning people to terrorism. In
some cases, foreign students have been very important in making
the case that there is not a necessarily a link between a particularly
strong religious view or fundamental view and a requirement that
that should turn you to terrorism. Of course I could not let that
question go without also making the strong case that we have foreign
students bringing not only cultural benefits to this country but
also very strong economic benefits. I am not in a position to
talk about whether or not individual students will have been deported
for those sorts of activities. I can say, however, given that
there have been understandable concerns about the way in which
people come into the country in order to benefit from our education,
that, for example, back in April we introduced a package of rules
changes with respect to immigration conditions that were made
specifically to tackle potential abuse of the student route. More
information is required before a student comes to this country,
not just about the college they are attending but also the course
they are going to be doing. It is a mandatory requirement, where,
for example, the Borders and Immigration Agency are asking for
information from colleges about people's involvement in attendance,
that that information is provided. If a college fails to provide
that information that could be cause for them being removed from
the register that has been set up, in order to ensure that colleges
are properly reporting enrolment and attendance of students. Incidentally,
66 bogus colleges have been removed from that particular register.
Also changes from this September will mean that, for example,
short-term students studying courses of less than six months will
be treated as visitors. That means they will come within the requirements
of requiring a visa to come to the UK, with increased safeguards
around the applications for visas, particularly the use of biometrics,
that we are seeing increasingly being rolled out.
Q14 Chairman: Home Secretary, obviously
we have always accepted, and hopefully we will continue to do
so, many, many foreign students. We are very pleased they come
to the UK and free speech is absolutely essential. Many will be
here and learn for the first time what free speech means. Would
you also accept that it is unacceptable in members of Parliament
or the public at large that anyone coming to study in the United
Kingdom should so exploit our free speech as to promote outright
racist propaganda amongst fellow students, be it anti-Christian,
anti-Jewish, anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh, and intimidate very often
Muslims who will not follow the people who I have just been describing.
Would you say that behaviour is totally unacceptable for anyone
coming to study in the United Kingdom?
Jacqui Smith: I do think that
is unacceptable behaviour. Coming back to the argument I was making
earlier about our shared values, part of the values we share in
this country are about tolerance and free speech. They are also
fundamental to the way in which our universities operate and it
is unacceptable that people are behaving in that sort of way in
our universities. Not just in terms of the action we have taken,
if you like, with respect to some of the areas I was just outlining
but also more generally, this is an issue where there needs to
be an honest debate and discussion with those in the universities
about what we, other student representatives and students themselves
can do to challenge that sort of behaviour. As you suggested in
your question, it goes beyond what might be seen as a sort of
terrorist threat and does impact on those sorts of shared values
that are important to us as a country.
Q15 Margaret Moran: In my constituency
of Luton, I know over the last three months of incidents which
were maybe not major but in which the police were involved: one
involving Hisb ut-Tahrir representatives trying to prevent people
from voting in local elections and another trying to attack people
on a multi faith march. Are you still of the view that John Reid
made in his review of Hisb ut-Tahrir that there is no hard evidence
to proscribe Hisb ut-Tahrir? Are you continuing to review them?
Jacqui Smith: With respect to
the first part of your question, on my reading of the evidence
at the moment, and certainly some of the statements of Hisb ut-Tahrir,
I would fundamentally disagree with some of the case that is being
made and I would want to take issue, as I think many of us would,
with some of the arguments that are being made. John's argument—and
I think, from having taken an earlier look at the evidence around
this, he is right—is that at the moment it is not clear
that that evidence is sufficient to fulfil the criteria that is
set down for the proscription of organisations. We have of course
in 44 cases proscribed organisations that could be seen as international
organisations. I think at this very moment there is a debate going
on in the House of Lords about the proscription of another two.
But I do think it is important, in order to enable us to do that
with certainty, that we always do it based on the strongest possible
evidence and ensuring that that fulfils the criteria that we have
set out. In response to your second question, I think this may
well be a developing area and I would certainly want to keep very
carefully under review any evidence and any new evidence that
might fulfil the evidential and other requirements that we have
set out for proscription.
Q16 Margaret Moran: You will be aware
that many people, myself included, have raised concerns about
the way in which, for example, young Muslim men who go into prison,
perhaps on issues relating to drugs, et cetera, come out with
completely different characters as a result of proselytising within
our prisons. What assessment do you make of the extent of that?
What steps are being taken by the department and the Prison Service
to deal with it?
Jacqui Smith: There is a series
of steps being taken in the Prison Service using a considerable
amount of money that has been allocated—I think it is about
£5 million that has been allocated to date for the current
financial year—covering, for example, the training and development
of prison staff; a specific programme for Muslim chaplains in
challenging and countering extremist rhetoric and ideology; specific
money that has been allocated for tackling particular behaviours
that happen within prison; money that has been provided for resettlement
projects for Muslim prisoners; and money that has been allocated
to the Prison Service for developing both their understanding
and also their capacity for dealing with these issues. So it is
an issue that we do take seriously. It is one to which we have
allocated resource. It is one that I know Jack Straw continues
to see as a priority and which I certainly have already and will
want to continue discussing with him.
Q17 Margaret Moran: You will know
I have raised with you some concerns about the allocation of those
resources. To what extent are you content that either those or
other monies that the Government has put forward in this area
are helping the problem as opposed to being part of the problem?
Jacqui Smith: I know that you
have raised particular concerns around specific community funding.
I think that absolutely makes it crucial that we look at both
the money that is being spent within prisons, and at all of the
programmes that we support as part of the "prevent"
strand to make sure that they are ensuring what we want to see
ensured. Obviously I will follow up very carefully the particular
concerns that you have raised.
Q18 Margaret Moran: In terms of what
happens within prisons, have you had any arguments that some communities
(for example, Muslim communities or others who may be considered
to be a threat) should be separated or should remain within general
prisons?
Jacqui Smith: Obviously there
have been cases that have been made. The way in which we ought
to look at the consideration of the way in which we deal with
prisoners should be on the basis of the risk that those particular
prisoners pose, both in terms of how much security there needs
to be around them and potentially on other issues about their
contact with other prisoners. I do not think that necessarily
implies you should have a sort of policy of separation of prisoners,
certainly not on the basis of their religious background, because—
Q19 Margaret Moran: Convicted terrorists,
for example.
Jacqui Smith: Convicted terrorists,
of course, would be considered, quite rightly, on the basis of
the risk that their previous activity and their terrorist activity
would imply. I would be a bit averse to accepting the idea that
because somebody shares a particular religious background they
would necessarily be in danger if they were brought together.
But, to come back to where we started from, I think this is a
serious issue, and that is why it has already been focused on
in the prison estate and it is one that we ought to work on.
Sir David Normington: The Prison
Service does disperse prisoners but obviously there is only a
certain number of prisons that are of the right degree of security
to take convicted terrorists, and that is an issue. Also, while
terrorists are on remand, waiting trial, it is often convenient
to put them near the secure courts. So there are some restrictions
on where you can disperse prisoners to but we are very clear that
that is policy: to try to disperse prisoners of all sorts and
not to leave them in concentrations.
|
