Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-62)
RT HON
THERESA MAY
MP
15 JULY 2010
Q1 Chair: Can I bring the Committee to
order and refer all present to the Register of Members' Interests
where the interests of all the Members are registered. I declare
an interest that my wife is a solicitor. Does anyone else have
a specific interest to declare today? Home Secretary, can I welcome
you most warmly to this first meeting in the new Parliament of
the Home Affairs Select Committee and congratulate you on your
appointment to this very important post. We would very much like
to know whether you have an opening statement to make.
Mrs May: Thank
you very much, Chairman. It is a pleasure to be able to appear
before the Committee at such an early stage in the formation of
the new Committee. If I may I thought I would just set out very
briefly the background to the approach that we are taking to Home
Office matters under the new coalition government and in particular
refer to the structural reform plan for the Home Office which
has been published, copies of which I am very happy to make available
to Members of the Committee. That structural reform plan sets
out five areas on which we are focusing our priorities. The first
is enabling the police and local communities to tackle crime and
antisocial behaviour included within this work that we are doing
on licensing, regulations and on antisocial behaviour, but also
it is about getting rid of bureaucracy so that police can have
more opportunity to get out on the streets. The second priority
is increasing the accountability of the police to citizens. These
are our proposals to introduce directly elected individuals at
police force level making the police accountable to the communities
they serve, removing the bureaucratic accountability that had
been placed under the previous government and changing to a model
of democratic accountability. Our third area is securing our borders
and controlling immigration. We have already announced our proposals
in relation to a cap on the number of non-EU economic migrants
coming into the UK, but also within that are our priorities for
ending the detention of children for immigration purposes, our
pledge in relation to border policing and a number of other areas
where we will be looking at immigration rules. Then our fourth
area is about protecting people's freedoms and civil liberties.
It is within this that we are looking at reversing some of the
state intrusion into people's lives, the abolition of ID cards,
bringing common sense into employment vetting procedures, the
vetting and barring scheme, restoring the rights to non-violent
protest, a number of matters which will be in the Freedom Bill
that we are proposing to bring to the House later this year. The
fifth area, but by no means the least, is protecting our citizens
from terrorism and within that, as well as supporting cross-government
work on counter-terrorism, preventing the spread of extremism,
confronting extremist groups and within that, of course, we are
looking at counter-terrorism legislation, as Members of the Committee
will be aware, and also at the Prevent round of work being undertaken
by the Home Office. I hope that is a helpful overview of the priority
areas that we have set within the Home Office.
Q2 Chair: That is extremely helpful.
Can I thank you for agreeing to come in so early within 48 hours
of the formation of the Committee. Can I start with recent events
before we go on to some of the substance of the points you have
mentioned. The Committee decided on Tuesday to conduct an inquiry
into firearms and obviously the events in Cumbria and Northumberland
cause concern to the House and the public. What are your initial
thoughts about those events? In particular, are you satisfied
that the inquiries that are going to be conducted are sufficient
for the needs of the public? Do you think there are any common
threads that link the cases of Derrick Bird, Raoul Moat and Christopher
Foster, which occurred in 2008?
Mrs May: In relation to the first
aspect of your question, Chairman, I think it is important that
the Government does not just knee-jerk react to events like these
that take place. That is why I think it was very important that
particularly in relation to the terrible incident in Cumbria we
did not immediately leap to assumptions about firearms legislation
and assumptions about what needed to be done. I think it is important
that we allow time for proper consideration of these cases. Obviously,
as you will be aware, in the case of the Cumbrian incidents there
are a number of ACPO led reviews taking place in relation to the
manner in which the investigation was held, in relation to the
use of firearms, the use of armed officers and other matters.
Those are expected to report in October. My feeling at the moment
is that it is appropriate to wait until those have reported to
see what comes out of those before leaping to any assumptions
about what might be necessary.
Q3 Chair: There is concern. Last
night on television we had recordings of Raoul Moat's conversations
with some of the people involved in his life. Do you think there
is more of a focus on the perpetrator rather than the victims
as far as these events are concerned?
Mrs May: I think the Prime Minister
put it very well yesterday in Prime Minister's Questions in answer
to a question in relation to the specific case of Raoul Moat when
he said that we must be absolutely clear that this man was a callous
murderer and there does appear to have been rather a lot of focus
on that individual rather than on the victims of his crime. Our
thoughts and our concerns should be about the victims of the crime.
We should be absolutely clear about the nature of the individual.
In relation to the particular handling of Raoul Moat and the manhunt,
of course that is, again as the Committee will be aware, the subject
of two IPCC inquiries. The Acting Chief Constable of Northumbria,
Sue Sim, did refer the force to the IPCC in the middle of the
manhunt when it became clear that intelligence had been provided
from the prison to the police force, so there is that inquiry.
Then because there was police contact with Raoul Moat before he
killed himself an automatic investigation will take place by the
IPCC about the handling of the investigation. I am sure you will
appreciate I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment
further on the handling of the issue given that those IPCC investigations
are taking place.
Q4 Chair: Of course not. Finally,
in terms of the law children as young as 10 are able to get shotgun
licences. The BBC had to go under the Freedom of Information Act
in order to get statistics from the Home Office as to the number
of those under the age of 18 that have firearms licences, and
I think it is a thousand. Would the Home Office be more transparent
in respect of these statistics as the Committee conducts its inquiry?
Mrs May: A number of issues have
been raised with me in recent times about transparency or otherwise
of the Home Office in relation to statistics covering different
issues and it is certainly something that I would want to look
at. Transparency is something that this Government is encouraging.
We want to ensure that information is out there for people to
know what is happening in those areas and are very happy to look
at that issue.
Chair: Thank you. Bridget Phillipson
has a question on this point.
Q5 Bridget Phillipson: Northumbria
Police incurred significant additional expenditure costs as a
result of the operation, which I believe they handled with real
care and professionalism in what was a very difficult situation.
Will the Home Office be offering additional support to Northumbria
Police to meet the costs of this operation given that this year
they have seen £3.5 million in budget cuts already?
Mrs May: There is a special grant
available which it is possible for forces to apply to the Home
Office for. There are criteria and so forth on which the grant
can be made available. We have made the point both in relation
to the Cumbria incident and the Northumbria incident reminding
police forces that that grant is available and obviously it is
up to them then to consider whether they feel it necessary to
apply.
Q6 Chair: Can I turn now to the other
matters you raised? As you know, the Home Office is under pressure
from the Treasury to cut its budget by up 25% and possibly up
to 40% if we are to believe the weekend press. Yesterday in the
House the Police Minister basically said that as far as he was
concerned frontline services would not be affected. This morning
a report was published by the former Chief Constable of Gloucestershire
which referred to cuts of up to 60,000 police officers. Indeed,
ACPO has said that if the level of proposed cuts is implemented
20,000 officers will have to leave the force. Are these figures
pie in the sky or is there any indication that this is actually
going to happen?
Mrs May: First of all, you are
absolutely right, Chairman, to say that of course the Home Office
is having to look at its budget in line with other government
departments as a result of the very large budget deficit that
this Government inherited from the last government. We have to
do something about that. Dealing with that fiscal deficit is a
top priority for this Government. If we do not then we will be
in a worse situation in years to come. It is essential that we
actually grip this issue and deal with it. Government departments,
other than those that are protected—International Development
and Health—have been asked to look at a range of spending
cuts which the Treasury have asked for indicative figures on.
That spending review is underway and will be taking place over
the next few weeks and into the early autumn. Any suggestions
as to the impact that spending review might have on police forces
are at this stage entirely speculative. We are in a discussion.
We are in a spending review process. In relation to what the Policing
and Criminal Justice Minister said yesterday, we were of course
debating the in-year cuts and there have been in-year cuts made
to police forces' funding. Those in-year cuts are less than 1.5%
of the police forces' budget and, in fact, those still leave police
forces with more cash than last year. What we are looking at in
terms of how the spending review will impact on policing budgets
and police forces—I believe there are costs that can be
driven out in police forces—is around procurement, around
bureaucracy, there are real savings that can be made in areas
which will not affect frontline services. Of course, we want to
see more police out there on the streets and I think our policy
of slashing bureaucracy for the police is part of getting more
police out there on the streets and visible where people want
to see them.
Q7 Chair: We obviously hope you are
going to remain Home Secretary for five years, but at the end
of your period as Home Secretary will you hope that there are
as many police officers as we have now or more?
Mrs May: What I would hope is
that we have effective policing so people can feel safe in their
neighbourhoods, so that we are seeing police fighting crime across
the board. What we want to do in relation to crime is not just
about policing, it is about the criminal justice system as a whole.
That is why I think it is significant that Nick Herbert is a minister
at both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. What we are
doing is looking at that whole system because in order to cut
crime one of the things we can do is reduce reoffending and that
is an important issue too.
Chair: Yes, we will come on to that later.
Q8 Mr Winnick: Home Secretary, the
study which the Chair has referred to was commissioned by the
Police Review magazine and it gives various scenarios of
what could happen as a result of the 25% cut in your budget. The
former Chief Constable, Tim Brain, says it is a possibility—you
say speculation—that 60,000 full-time police officers, civilian
staff and community support officer posts could go by 2015. Do
you think that is out of the question?
Mrs May: Mr Winnick, I will repeat
what I have said to the Chairman if I may. At the moment these
figures are entirely speculative because the percentage figure
that is going to be relevant for the Home Office budget, and within
that for the policing budgets, has not yet been agreed. I do not
think it is helpful to be speculating and commenting on that speculation.
I am very clear about what I want to do in relation to the Home
Office and policing, but I have also been very clear to the police.
I said this to the ACPO conference recently and I said it to the
Police Federation conference, that policing will have to take
a share of the cuts that are coming. I repeat, we need to do this
because of the financial situation we find ourselves in and if
we do not deal with the deficit now and start doing that then
we will find the situation much worse in the future.
Q9 Mr Winnick: You can put responsibility
for the deficit wherever you like but those are not the questions
we are asking you today, that is perhaps more for the Treasury
Committee or the Chamber of the House of Commons. Home Secretary,
our constituents certainly feel that there should be more police
in their communities for very obvious reasons. Certainly I am
constantly asked, and I am sure the same applies to all the other
Members of the Committee, to see more police presence, certainly
not less. Should we not work on the basis that within the next
four years all the indications are that as a result of the 25%
cut in your budget, and you accept it is going to happen, there
will indeed be substantially less police than at the present moment?
Mrs May: First of all, I have
not accepted a figure. You said I had accepted a particular figure
for the cuts in the Home Office budget. The Treasury has asked
departments to provide indicative figures on the basis of 25%
and 40%. We do not know what the final figure will be for the
Home Office budget, so again I am not going to make an assumption
about what that figure will be and that is why I think it is wrong
to speculate on what that impact could be. I think it is also
wrong to speculate on the basis that all the impact comes in relation
to employment and to individuals within the police force. I believe
there is a significant opportunity to drive out costs in our police
forces. For example, we have 43 police forces, all of whom buy
separate uniforms, buy separate transport, and I think there are
some very real opportunities to drive out cost savings in relation
to matters like that. I agree with you that people do say they
want to see more policing presence on the streets and that is
why I want to slash the bureaucracy to give police officers more
time to get out from filling in forms and are actually out there
on the streets.
Q10 Mr Winnick: Can I just ask you
again, on the basis of what is likely to happen, whether it is
25% or whether you can defend your budget by a reduction of less
than 25%, are we likely to see in the next four years fewer or
more police officers and frontline civilian staff? It is a yes
or no answer really.
Mrs May: I am not going to give
you a yes or no answer for this reason: until we have seen the
final figure any suggestions in terms of numbers and impact on
numbers at the moment are purely speculative. I believe we need
to go through the process of the spending review. As I have indicated,
part of the discussions that we will be having with police forces,
indeed that we have started having with police forces, is about
the extent to which it is possible to drive out costs within our
police forces without having the sort of impact that you are talking
about. That is the discussion that we are having at the moment.
Mr Winnick: I think we will take that
as a yes answer.
Q11 Mr Burley: Home Secretary, on
the subject of police numbers raised by the Chairman and Mr Winnick,
do you not think it is important that the debate now finally moves
on from one of looking at police numbers to actually looking at
what the police do when they are on the beat, and we move away
from a debate around inputs to a debate around outputs? One of
the statistics that sticks in my mind is that if you reduce the
bureaucracy on the police by 20% you could actually double the
police presence on the streets of England and Wales without needing
a single extra officer. Would you agree that it is more important
to focus on what the police do every day rather than on the numbers
of them that are doing it?
Mrs May: I do agree with the comments
that Mr Burley has made and this was part of what I was trying
to indicate in my answers to both the Chairman and Mr Winnick.
What we need to ensure is that we look at the ability of police
officers to do the job that people want them to be doing, which
is having a presence on the streets, but also out there fighting
crime. For too long they have found themselves increasingly being
tied up and having to spend more and more time filling in forms.
I think the figure is that for a police constable currently they
spend an average of 14% of their time out on the streets. That
is not what people expect from a police constable. Obviously there
are some parts of their activity, court processes and so forth,
but I think there is more we can do in looking at the criminal
justice system to ensure that we reduce bureaucracy in the criminal
justice system again to free up more time and to make sure we
are dealing efficiently.
Q12 Mary MacLeod: Home Secretary,
you mentioned that there are 43 police forces across the country.
Do you see a situation where we could reduce the number of police
forces so that we can achieve some savings?
Mrs May: I believe that savings
can be achieved by better collaboration between police forces.
I do not want to see a situation where we are going through what
we did a few years ago with the government attempting to impose
mergers on police forces. I do not think that is right. If police
forces were to come and say that they voluntarily wanted to merge
and they had a clear business case for doing that, and they could
evidence local support for that happening, then we would of course
look at that. It is certainly not the intention of the Home Office
to impose mergers on police forces. As I say, I believe significant
savings can be made by collaboration between forces rather than
the mergers that have been suggested in the past.
Chair: Continuing with this theme, Lorraine
Fullbrook.
Q13 Lorraine Fullbrook: Thank you,
Chairman. Home Secretary, I would like to ask about the second
point of your priorities in the draft structural reform plan to
increase the accountability of police to citizens. I really wanted
to ask a bit more about the elected individuals in the plan. I
see in the draft document we have received that there is a plan
and specific date for when the plan will move through the system.
Can I ask specifically what improvements we hope to see to the
work of local police forces and, indeed, to policing on the ground
as seen by local communities, which I believe is extremely important
for people's lives and their quality of life in the case of antisocial
behaviour, which affects more people than violent crime, for example?
What improvements do we hope to see from this initiative going
forward?
Mrs May: The purpose of introducing
directly elected individuals is to give a means whereby police
forces can be more responsive to local needs. The directly elected
individual would be holding the police to account in relation
to their response to local needs. We will be publishing before
the end of the month a document which will set out in more detail
our proposals on the directly elected individuals. The whole point
of this is to move from the situation we have had in the past
of bureaucratic accountability up to the Home Office for police
forces to democratic accountability to people at local level.
There is another important aspect of what we will do which I think
will help encourage that democratic accountability, which is the
provision of more localised information for people, the crime
mapping, information about what is happening in their locality,
so people will be able to see clearly what is happening and they
will have a route through the directly elected individual to be
making their views known and, therefore, I think we will see not
just more accountability but more responsiveness to local needs.
Q14 Lorraine Fullbrook: Just going
on from that, Home Secretary, there are a myriad of partnerships
within local authorities with policing on the ground and in police
forces at a wider level. How will the initiative impact on those
partnership arrangements? I know, for example, there are many
who duplicate a lot of the functions that they carry out. How
will this initiative impact on those partnerships and how will
local authorities engage with the process?
Mrs May: One of the things that
struck me in looking at this whole issue was how cluttered the
landscape was at various levels in terms of policing. You are
absolutely right to say there are, of course, a number of partnerships
out there, some of which are duplicating the activities of others.
We do want to look at seeing ways in which we can de-clutter that
landscape and perhaps focus people's attention rather more. We
are looking at the role that the directly elected individuals
have wider than simply policing, so the interaction they could
have with local authorities in looking at crime and community
safety at a more local level. That is an issue that we will be
looking at and will be available for people to comment on in due
course. Duplication of resources is wasted money.
Lorraine Fullbrook: Absolutely.
Q15 Mr Burley: Home Secretary, on
the subject of police work done in partnership with other organisations,
and in particular local authorities, can I ask a supplementary
question on the single non-emergency number, also known as 101.
I should start by declaring an interest, which is that in a previous
life I worked in the Home Office for a year helping to set up
the original number in Hampshire, where it still operates, and
also designed the number for London before the funding was pulled
by the then Home Secretary, John Reid. Can you give the Committee
today any update on the 101 number as it currently operates and
let us know whether there are any plans to get the programme going
again, to roll the number out further, even nationwide, and, if
so, the likely timescales?
Mrs May: I apologise, it will
be a partial answer to your question because I will not be able
to give timescales. It is certainly something we are looking at.
We are currently looking at the possibility of whether we could
introduce the 101 number as a non-emergency number for the reporting
of certain activities, like antisocial behaviour. That work is
in hand.
Q16 Chair: Could you write to us
with any further thoughts on this?
Mrs May: Yes, I would be very
happy to.
Q17 Alun Michael: In your introductory
remarks and in the document you have circulated to us you have
talked about and put right at the top tackling crime and disorder,
dealing better with crime and disorder. In your comments to the
policing conference on 30 June you were rather more specific.
You said then: "I couldn't be any clearer about your mission.
It's to cut crime. No more, no less". That seems a very clear
statement. Is that your mission statement to the police in effect?
Mrs May: Yes. I believe the police
are there to fight crime. I am not sure if I would be anticipating
a follow-up question in relation to antisocial behaviour, for
example, but I see dealing with antisocial behaviour as part of
that job of actually cutting crime.
Q18 Alun Michael: I would accept
that point. Having said that, and particularly in your reference
to partnerships a few moments ago, have you looked at the methodology
of Crime and Disorder Partnerships, which at their best involve
locally owned analysis of crime and disorder in the area and accountability
back to the local community for success or otherwise in cutting
that activity?
Mrs May: The concept of community
working together with the police in a variety of forms to deal
with these issues, particularly with antisocial behaviour and
disorder in communities, I think is a very important one and it
has been shown in a number of areas to be very effective. It is
one of the reasons why, as I indicated earlier in answer to Lorraine
Fullbrook, we are looking at much more localised information being
available to people about what is happening in their areas in
terms of crime. Another commitment we have, which you will also
see, is to support the police for regular beat meetings at neighbourhood
level so that people are able to take their concerns, issues,
comments, more directly to the police. I think that local accountability
is very important.
Q19 Alun Michael: I would agree with
you on accountability. I do have a sense that some of the PACT
meetings that we have had in the past have been a good way of
taking police off the street rather than on to it. Are you aware,
for instance, of the work that has been done in Cardiff on violence
reduction led by a surgeon, Professor John Shepherd, which led
to a 40% reduction measured not by police figures or crime statistics
but by the number of people having to go to accident and emergency
for treatment?
Mrs May: I have to confess, Mr
Michael, I am not aware of that particular project. I would be
very happy to look at details of that project. What you have said
is a very good example of, if I may use this phrase, the fact
that we are all in this together, that there are ways in which
we can look at dealing with crime which are not always the obvious
routes. Indeed, one of the issues you will have seen within the
structural reform plan at 1.41 is to ensure hospitals share non-confidential
information with the police on knife and gun crime and other serious
violence working with the Department of Health.
Alun Michael: In illustrating that I
would commend the Cardiff exemplar because it is an example of
science being used to analyse the problem.
Q20 Chair: I have a feeling that
you will be getting an invitation soon to visit Cardiff?
Mrs May: I would be happy to do
so.
Q21 Dr Huppert: I simply want to
come in on the subject of science being used. If I can just stay
on the subject of accountability for now, could you comment a
bit on the role of ACPO Limited because I have always found it
rather unusual that we have effectively a private company which
operates in a fairly non-transparent way but is not subject to
freedom of information, yet it appears to be effectively setting
policy for the police forces across the country and how rules
about tasers are applied, DNA database and a whole range of issues
without obviously having any connection to the public or, indeed,
yourself. Could you comment on their role?
Mrs May: Yes. One of the other
aspects that we are looking at in relation to the overall policing
landscape is beyond simply introducing the directly elected individuals
and the body that will be there to provide the checks and balances
to those directly elected individuals, but also at the wider landscape
of other bodies that exist at a national level. We have been talking
to ACPO about their role and there is an appetite in ACPO themselves
to look at their role and what would be appropriate for their
role in the future. I certainly hope that we will be able to see
ACPO playing a significant leadership role in relation to chief
officers in the police force in the future. We do need to look
at the structure of ACPO at the moment and that is one of the
matters, as I say, we are looking at in relation to this wider
policing landscape and will be taking views on.
Q22 Mark Reckless: On that point,
given that we are transferring the powers of police authorities
to directly elected individuals, do you intend to take the same
steps to ensure that powers that are exercised by national and
central policing bodies are also properly subject to democratic
oversight?
Mrs May: Are you thinking of bodies
like SOCA, like NPIA, or other sorts of bodies?
Q23 Mark Reckless: I think those
are two examples. Would there be a third?
Mrs May: Well, as I have indicated,
when we produce our consultation document before the end of the
month, we will be, within that, looking at a number of options
for the wider policing landscape and accountability will be part
of that issue, but actually efficiency within the system and making
sure that any bodies that do exist have a clear mission and a
clear focus on what they are doing, we are looking at that issue.
I am going to be a little vague here, if I may, because I feel,
as you will appreciate, Chairman, that the consultation document
will be coming out towards the end of the month and I am not able
to give all the details and there is still some work in progress
on that, but obviously members of the Committee, I am sure, will
be interested in looking at that document when we produce it.
Q24 Mark Reckless: I am greatly looking
forward to considering that document at the end of the month.
I just wonder, to the extent it is a discussion/consultation document,
can we expect, for example, with regard to the oversight arrangements
for directly elected individuals between elections, to see a range
of options, or is it more likely to be a single preferred model
that you are consulting on?
Mrs May: Well, we are currently
looking at a range of options and I think you can take it that
there will be some questions in the consultation document about
how that structure should operate.
Q25 Steve McCabe: I just wanted to
ask a small point about the elected commissioner, Home Secretary.
If it is the Government's view that the optimum size of a parliamentary
constituency in terms of accountability and representation is
75,000, how will a single individual better represent the public
in terms of the West Midlands if he is to serve a population in
excess of seven million?
Mrs May: Well, the structure that
we have at the moment for the accountability to members of the
public in relation to the police force is of course the police
authorities. I think it was the last Government's own Cabinet
Office research back, I think, three years ago that showed that
only 7% of members of the public knew that, if they had an issue
relating to the police, they could go to a member of the police
authority and I think 68% thought it was a good idea to have a
directly elected individual to whom they could go who had responsibility
for the police. I think at the moment we have a situation where
people do not know about the structures that are there in relation
to any comments that they wish to make about policing in their
local area, and that is why, I think, introducing a directly elected
individual is the right way to go; they know that there will be
someone whose election they can participate in and who will be
the person who is responsible for ensuring that local interests
are taken up by the police.
Q26 Mary MacLeod: Home Secretary,
I want to talk about drugs in relation to drug misuse and the
fact that drugs are often the cause for people to do crime to
help support their drug habit, and I was pleased to see just now
in your Structural Reform Plan that you do have drugs mentioned
there at 1.5 with a comprehensive approach to drug misuse. On
the first part of that, it talks about a new system of temporary
bans on new `legal highs'. Can you perhaps just talk a bit more
about that and when perhaps you might introduce that sort of system,
and how will the holding category for drug classification perhaps
work?
Mrs May: Yes, the first thing
to say is that we are currently acting on the latest legal high,
naphyrone, NRG1. The Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs
has identified that that should be classified as a Class B drug.
We instituted an import ban last week or the week before as soon
as the ACMD report came out and have laid orders in Parliament,
both in the Commons and the Lords, because the process is such
that those debates need to take place to ban naphyrone, to ban
NRG1. We have moved as quickly as we can on that and would hope
that that would be in place by the recess, Parliament going into
recess. Legal highs are the next battle, if you like. There are
ongoing battles with a number of other drugs that are in existence
and, sadly, in use, but this is the next battle and one of the
problems of course is the speed with which these legal highs are
coming through, and that is why we do want to introduce the possibility
of a temporary ban. It will require legislation for us to do that,
and the intention would be to find a system which would enable
us to bring a ban into place while the scientific evidence was
being assessed, so at the first signs of a potential problem we
will be able to take a decision and we are looking at what that
mechanism might be. Now, the legislative process is such that
I suspect the temporary ban, as it says here, we are looking at
having something in place by the autumn next year and I would
hope we might be able to do that earlier, but that is in relation
to the legislative process, but our aim is to have something which
can enable us to act quickly while we enable the ACMD to give
us the full scientific advice on a particular legal high that
has come forward.
Q27 Mary MacLeod: I realise it is
still early in the process, but have you any thoughts around just
how we can perhaps enforce it because nowadays it is very easy
for under-age children to buy things over the Internet, so for
the under-18s that can be an issue?
Mrs May: Indeed, and I am pleased
to say that this is something that the Serious Organised Crime
Agency has been looking at and taking action in relation to websites
where these drugs are available and indicating, where they have
become illegal, exactly that to people.
Dr Huppert: Home Secretary, can I use
this topic of drugs as a cue to explore your Department's attitude
to scientific evidence and the whole concept of the evidence base
across the whole range of the Home Office. How committed are you
to that and how much work will your Chief Scientific Adviser and
other independent scientific bodies be giving on how police ought
to work, how drug policies should be developed and how immigration
strategies should happen?
Q28 Chair: A brief exploration because
we are covering some of these subjects later.
Mrs May: A brief explanation is
that I believe evidence-based decisions are important. I believe
that is one of the reasons why what we are talking about, for
example, in relation to the legal highs is a temporary ban while
we enable ACMD to have the time to be able to properly examine
these and give the scientific advice to the Government on them.
We have a department within the Home Office which is well-respected
in terms of the scientific research that it does on matters relating
to policing and other issues.
Q29 Chair: Just on the Advisory Council,
does it now have a full complement? No one has resigned since
you became Home Secretary?
Mrs May: Nobody has resigned since
I became Home Secretary, Chairman.
Q30 Chair: They are all there? There
are no more appointments to make?
Mrs May: I believe they are all
there, but I will check that fact and come back to you. I have
had a meeting with Les Iversen, the Chairman of the Committee,
a very positive meeting, talking about how we are going to go
forward in relation to this. I think it is important that that
committee is able to give its scientific advice to the Government.
Of course, politicians then have a decision to make in relation
to the scientific advice and other factors that they may wish
to consider, but I think it is important that we allow the scientists
the opportunity to come forward with their proper advice.
Chair: Nicola Blackwood is now going
to take you into the area of domestic violence.
Q31 Nicola Blackwood: Last night
at the Centre for Social Justice Awards, we heard some really
horrifying statistics about the problems of absent fathers and
a particularly impassioned speech from Bob Geldof about how difficult
it is when fathers are refused contact with their children, so
I would welcome a review of family law to look at how we can best
provide greater access for non-resident parents and the grandparents.
I know that the Home Secretary has taken an interest in domestic
abuse and, given that Women's Aid found that between 1994 and
2004 29 children in 13 families were actually killed as a result
of contact arrangements and the Forced Marriage Unit has said
that unsupervised contact in honour-based violent situations is
actually extremely risky, I just wonder how you see that working
out in terms of domestic abuse situations and if there will be
specific guidance for cases which do involve domestic abuse allegations.
Mrs May: I think this is a very,
very difficult area and I am well aware of Bob Geldof's passionate
views on this issue. I have spoken to him and I have had meetings
with him in the past in relation to it, and we are looking at
this whole area of family justice and how the system can operate
because I think there is scope for making improvement in the system.
The particular issue raised about contact is a very, very difficult
one both in relation to how contact can be used by the different
parties in these circumstances and, sadly, what happens of course
is that all too often, when matters get to court and contact arrangements
are being discussed, it is at a stage when perhaps the relationships
are quite bitter and quite difficult, and I think one of the things
we need to look at is whether there is more that can be done in
advance to pursue these matters in a less confrontational situation
than occurs in courts. Certainly, in relation to the interaction
with domestic violence and abuse, it is of course very important
that we ensure that any contact arrangements that are put in place
are suitable for the situation in which that child is going to
be in relation to any previous violence or abuse that has taken
place. In some cases, that may mean of course that obviously supervised
contact may be the answer to that and, in some cases, it may even
be more difficult than that, depending on what has actually taken
place initially, but these are difficult judgments and it is right
that criteria are made available so that judgments can be made
based on the welfare of the child and that is the thing that will
lead decisions on contact, it is the welfare of the child.
Q32 Nicola Blackwood: One of the
characteristics of campaigns against domestic abuse over the last
decade or so has been that they are couched in terms of only violence
against women, but, as a third of victims are actually male, although
not on the more severe end, and we have only 1% of refuge space
available to men at the moment, I just wonder how you see yourself
tackling that in the next few years.
Mrs May: First of all, I think
it is important that the Government recognises the point that
you have made. It is right of course that the majority of cases
of domestic violence are against women and, therefore, that is
where the focus has come, but I do recognise that men are sometimes
the victims of domestic violence, so, in looking at issues around
domestic violence, we have to look at them in the round and we
have to make sure that we are taking cognisance of the male victims
of domestic violence as well as the female victims of domestic
violence. We are looking across and this combines my Home Office
responsibilities, but obviously also the women and equality ministerial
responsibilities, and we are currently looking at how we can take
forward some of the ideas that both the coalition parties had
in opposition in relation to dealing with domestic violence.
Q33 Nicola Blackwood: One of the
particularly contentious issues in this area which has come up
in the last few weeks is some of the proposals to perhaps grant
anonymity to rape defendants. There has been a lot of debate and
a lot of concern raised that this would perhaps prevent victims
from coming forward, although there does not seem to be very much
evidence to support either way, whether there are a lot of falsified
claims or it will actually prevent rape victims coming forward,
so has the Home Office been studying the potential impact of this
policy and ways in which we can prevent any detrimental impact
on progress in this area of legislation?
Mrs May: Yes, I think it is important
that decisions are not just based on assumptions, but decisions
are based on fact, and I believe you yourself participated in
the debate that took place in the House recently on this issue
and, as the Ministry of Justice Minister outlined there, we are
looking at anonymity between arrest and charge. The Ministry of
Justice will be consulting with a number of organisations and
people involved in this area with an interest in this over the
summer and coming back with more detail on this in the autumn,
but we all, I believe, have the same aim, which is ensuring that
we can actually both support the victims of rape, but also, crucially,
increase the conviction rate for rape and ensure that people are
being taken to charge and through to conviction. Of course, one
of the issues is looking at the fact that in a significant number
of cases the issue is not pursued and we need to look at why women
feel that it is not possible to pursue that in relation to how
their cases are being handled, and I will be responding to Baroness
Stern's report on this, which I think has been a very important
contribution in this area, in due course.
Q34 Bridget Phillipson: Home Secretary,
if I can just return to the case of Raoul Moat, what lessons do
you think we might be able to learn in terms of domestic violence
and serial offenders, and it would appear that Mr Moat had a number
of victims where he was abusive towards them and issues relating
to children, and how we tackle serial domestic violence offenders
and what lessons there are there, but also how the police and
prison authorities can better work together to actually manage
offender risk in the community and also flag up the issues around
alerting victims that there may be a threat directed towards them?
I am sure you will have read in the press that there was the suggestion
that he had made threats while in prison towards his former partner.
Mrs May: Perhaps I may, Chairman,
make the point that I do not want to comment on the Raoul Moat
case individually because of the IPCC investigations, and obviously
one of the IPCC investigations is precisely into this issue of
the information that was made available from the prison to the
police and how that was handled. Perhaps I may look slightly more
generally at this issue of serial offenders and some of the ways
in which we can deal with serial offenders, and I think there
are a number of issues that I want to look at. One, for example,
that I had looked at in opposition, and will want to look at now,
is some very interesting evidence from the United States of work
that was done, particularly in New York, of police making random
visits to homes where domestic violence had taken place in the
past and a significant decrease in the number of incidents as
a result of those sorts of random visits. I think there are measures
that we can be taking like that, looking at things like that,
which could have a very real impact on cases of domestic violence.
I also think that we do need to look, and it partly fits into
the questions from Nicola Blackwood, at domestic violence not
just as domestic violence because often there is a spectrum of
activity that takes place with different forms of abuse, and stalking
can often follow domestic violence paths, so I think we need to
look at this quite widely and make sure that we are not just adopting
a silo mentality and looking at one aspect of violence against
women.
Q35 Bridget Phillipson: In relation
to the comments and questions around child contact, would you
agree that it is rarely appropriate for mediation to be a form
of resolving issues around child contact where you are dealing
with domestic violence and abuse, that you already have an imbalance
in that power relationship and that there are issues there and,
therefore, it is more difficult and often inappropriate to go
down the route of mediation in those circumstances?
Mrs May: I accept that it can
be more difficult to go down the mediation route in those circumstances.
I would not want to dismiss it entirely and I think it would be
for those who are looking at these cases to determine it. We are
still looking at what the process should be and how we should
be reforming family justice to look at some of these issues, so
policy is still be determined in this area in looking at good
practice and obviously taking advice on this. All I would say
is that I fully accept that, where there has been domestic violence
in a relationship, then the nature of the relationship is different
from that where domestic violence has not taken place, and obviously
that has to be taken into account in looking at what appropriate
solutions are.
Q36 Mr Burley: Just quickly on this
subject of access rights to non-resident parents, and I know you
do not want to talk about the Raoul Moat case in particular, but
one of the most interesting comments for me that he said to the
police was, "I never had a father". I just wonder whether
comments like that influence your attitude around increasing access
for children to their fathers whenever possible?
Mrs May: Well, I have looked at,
as I say, the issue of family justice, and issues around contact
are currently being looked at. They are more formally a matter
for the Ministry of Justice and it is the Ministry of Justice
which will be leading on this. As it happens, I have looked at
these areas in the past. Again, I do not want to refer to the
specific case that you have mentioned there, but Bob Geldof, I
know, in his speeches on this matter is very concerned about ensuring
that fathers have access to children, but it is of course important
that all questions and all issues, like the nature of the relationship,
has there been domestic violence, has there been abuse, are taken
into account when these matters are looked at.
Q37 Mary MacLeod: Home Secretary,
just on the subject of victims, and you said how important it
was to support victims through this, are there any plans at all
to support victims both in domestic violence cases and in rape
cases where they have gone through such horrific crimes and we
do need to support them?
Mrs May: Certainly in relation
to rape victims, we have a Coalition Agreement commitment to make
funding available for the possible setting up of some new Rape
Crisis centres and to look at putting the funding for Rape Crisis
centres on a more sustainable footing because they have, as many
people will know from constituency experience, been living on
a very difficult year-on-year basis and often finding their future
uncertain right until the bitter end of a financial year, so we
are looking at ways in which we can make that funding more sustainable
and the possibility of funding being available for some new Rape
Crisis centres.
Chair: Alun Michael will now go into
the immigration area.
Q38 Alun Michael: I would like to
understand a bit better what you meant when you said that you
want "to cut immigration levels to tens of thousands, not
hundreds of thousands". If you look at the actual figures,
the total number of economic migrants to the UK in 2009 under
the points-based system was 55,275. Many are needed by businesses
if they are coming in as skilled workers and some international
companies, which we want to stay here and invest, depend on them,
so to achieve your objectives, will you not have to bear down
on things like family reunification?
Mrs May: We have always been clear
that the work that we are doing to introduce the annual cap on
non-EU economic migration is one part of the process of looking
at immigration and at looking at bringing net migration into the
UK down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands.
Just looking at the figures, for example, back in 1997 net migration
was at 48,000 and in 2008, which is the last figure that I have
got in the table, it was 163,000, having been over 200,000 in
three of the intervening years.
Q39 Alun Michael: But the 2009 figure
is around 55,000.
Mrs May: No, you have just quoted
the economic migration figure. These are the net migration figures
that I am quoting, and that is the comparison between the tens
of thousands and the hundreds of thousands that we are talking
about as our overall aim. There are other aspects of immigration
that we will be looking at. We have a commitment, as you will
see in our Structural Reform Plan, to look at the issue around
student visas and bogus colleges and dealing with that. We have
already introduced an English language test for people who are
coming here to join a fiance, a partner, to get married to ensure
that they have a basic level of English before they come.
Q40 Alun Michael: You referred to
students there and I am sure everybody would approve of preventing
bogus students from coming in, but many university towns and many
institutions of higher education depend on the flow of students,
so is that going to be safe, is that going to continue, or are
you intending to reduce those numbers?
Mrs May: I can assure you that
we are very well aware of the importance of overseas students
to a number of universities, and we will be looking across the
student visa regime, and I think it is right for us to look at
all of these aspects. As I say, as Mr Michael himself has implied,
I do not think anybody could argue that we should not be doing
something about bogus colleges, but we will be looking across
the board to make sure that we have got the visa system that is
appropriate and the visa system that is right.
Q41 Alun Michael: Are you intending
to keep the points-based system?
Mrs May: The points-based system
is the basis on which the tier one and tier two decisions will
be taken.
Alun Michael: So that will continue to
be the basis.
Chair: We have both Oxford and Cambridge
represented, though I do not want to be elitist on this Committee,
but I think Nicola Blackwood has a question on student visas,
in particular.
Q42 Nicola Blackwood: Obviously,
we have concerns about the effect of the changed regulations on
university numbers altogether, but particularly for English language
schools with the change of requirements for English language qualifications
before coming, there is a problem if you are coming to learn English,
and I understand there has been a High Court judgment, saying
that it is illogical to require that someone can speak English
when they are coming over to learn English, and I wondered if
you had any comments about how you plan to deal with that judgment.
Mrs May: Yes, we will be looking
very carefully obviously at that judgment and at how we now look
at the English language test in relation to students. This will
be part of the work that we will be doing more widely in looking
at student visas and looking at the issue of bogus colleges.
Q43 Chair: The Committee is going
to look at the issue of the cap, and we have the Immigration Minister
coming in next week, but your consultation period is quite tight,
it is 12 weeks, and of course we have the recess in between, so
we may reply after the period and I hope you do not mind if our
letter or report comes out beyond the 12 weeks.
Mrs May: I recognise the difficulties
of the timetable for the Committee and we look forward to the
Committee's report when we receive it.
Chair: From Oxford, let us go to Cambridge.
Q44 Dr Huppert: Can I move us from
immigration, because we will be looking at it later, to the issues
about asylum which are big issues certainly in my constituency.
Firstly, I have been struck by the number of cases that seem to
take a very long time to resolve, and I am sure you are aware
of the Legacy Programme to clear some of those. How many cases
are there still waiting in that Legacy Programme, how rapidly
are they being dealt with, and when will we finally have cleared
that huge backlog of cases?
Mrs May: The initial commitment,
I think, was that we would be looking, because this is obviously
something that has come over from the previous Government, at
clearing the backlog of cases by next year, by summer/autumn 2011.
One of the things we have been doing is looking at the process
of clearing those legacy cases and some extra temporary staff
have been brought in by the UK Border Agency to deal with this
matter and we are looking at how we can ensure that we meet that
particular deadline. I am going to hesitate on the figure, but
I think it is around—
Q45 Chair: It is a lot.
Mrs May: I think the last figure
I saw was something like 170,000 cases, but I am very happy to
write to the Committee and give you the absolute figure. I always
feel it is difficult for home secretaries to give figures in front
of this particular Select Committee, if I may say, Mr Chairman,
given the record of this Select Committee, but I will perhaps
write with the precise figure.
Chair: You do not need to do that because
next week Lin Homer is coming before us, so you can pass it on
to her and get her to give us the figure.
Q46 Dr Huppert: In terms of those
people who are waiting, I hope we will hit that target to clear
this backlog. What are your thoughts on the idea that, where we
have taken more than, say, six months to reasonably process their
case, we should give them rights to work while we try to work
out what are doing?
Mrs May: Well, I think, looking
ahead, what my intention would be would be to ensure that we are
not keeping people waiting for so long so that that requirement
does not come into it. We have a commitment in our Reform Plan
to look again at the way we process asylum applications to ensure
that we can do them in a shorter period of time. I think that
is only fair to the individuals, frankly, not to keep them waiting
and I, as other Members will, have had constituency cases of people
who have been waiting far too long.
Q47 Dr Huppert: If, after those reforms,
there are still occasional cases where we take too long, would
you consider some sort of process to be reasonable for those people
where we have made the error?
Mrs May: My focus is on putting
in place a system where we do not have people waiting too long
and where we are not making the sort of errors that you are talking
about.
Q48 Chair: Are you going to continue
the practice of the previous Government of giving bonuses to senior
Home Office officials at the UK Border Agency, even though the
backlog is still there, or can you tie your bonuses to the clearing
of the backlog?
Mrs May: Well, as I am sure you
are aware, Chairman, in the current environment, I am not sure
if anybody is talking about bonuses.
Chair: Excellent!
Q49 Steve McCabe: Home Secretary,
I want to ask about control orders and the whole problem, with
respect to terrorism, of people whom the last Government could
not deport or bring to trial, but whom we have considered a threat
to our security, which bedevilled a lot of the parliamentary process
and it was eventually resolved with control orders, but the courts
have progressively, I think, weakened control orders, and I notice
that Lord MacDonald, who is a known critic of them, is going to
play an advisory role for yourself. I just wondered if you could
tell us, do you plan to keep control orders and, if not, how are
you going to deal with these people whom we cannot deport and
we cannot bring to trial, but whom you regard as a serious threat?
Mrs May: Chairman, in answering
that, perhaps I could just make a point about Lord MacDonald's
role. He will be, if you like, peer-reviewing the review that
the Home Office will be conducting on counter-terrorism legislation
to ensure that the proper processes have been gone through, that
the evidence has been properly looked at and that all the options
have been considered. In relation to control orders, they will
be part of that counter-terrorism review, so we are looking again
at control orders, but Mr McCabe has highlighted a very real difficulty
that we have in relation to those individuals whom it is not felt
possible to deport, and I think people, rightly, look with a very
real measure of concern when somebody is identified as a potential
terrorist threat to the UK, but it is not possible to deport them.
One of the issues we will also be looking at in that counter-terrorism
review is the issue of deportation with assurances because of
course that is one of the other possible responses to a situation
like that, to be able to provide sufficient assurance to the courts
that it will be possible to deport people, so we are looking at
that issue as well.
Q50 Mr Winnick: Somewhat over 40
years ago, Home Secretary, despite opposition, particularly on
your side, said it was a challenge to basic rights, legislation
was passed against racial discrimination. I raise this as a preface
to the question that many people are, Home Secretary, and I am
asking whether you are also, concerned about the sort of hate
propaganda which is carried out by extremists, not necessarily
those directly involved in terrorism, but in prisons trying to
convert into the most extreme form of Islam and on campuses? No
one wants to deny anyone free speech, but it must be within the
laws which we have passed, and some of which I would refer to,
amidst a good deal of controversy in the 1960s, and I am just
wondering if you feel whether enough is being done in prisons
and in colleges up and down this country, but particularly more
in London, to challenge those who are engaging in the worst forms
of hate propaganda, blatant anti-Semitism, nothing to do with
Israel, just blatant anti-Semitism, but also anti-Christian, anti-Sikh
and anti-Hindu propaganda?
Mrs May: Chairman, Mr Winnick
has raised a very important topic which could be the subject of
an entire debate rather than just an answer to a question. I think
there is a very real need for us to look at this whole issue of
hate propaganda and the dissemination of hate propaganda. We are
going to look at the issues of the reporting of hate crime and
making sure that we are doing all we can to ensure that we understand
the level of hate crime through the reporting of that, but I think
there is a real issue. The recent report that came out only a
matter of weeks ago in relation to prisons showed that there is
a question about the handling of some of these issues within prisons,
and that is something that I will be talking to the Ministry of
Justice about. I think it is something where, as a society, we
do need to look at this issue in looking at how we deal with some
of the aspects, particularly, of counter-terrorism, and I am aware
Mr Winnick's question went slightly wider than that issue of counter-terrorism,
but we will be looking at this issue of how we deal with those
who propagate extremist views.
Q51 Nicola Blackwood: Given that
Prevent is seen with deep suspicion by many communities in this
country and given the fact that, in order to try and combat terrorism,
we need to take the country with us on it, can you comment on
what you plan to do about Prevent and whether you intend to review
the process which is currently in place?
Mrs May: Yes, we do want to look
very closely at Prevent and how it operates and I am conscious
that one of the problems, I think, has been that Prevent has come
to be seen purely as a counter-terrorism programme and the aspects
of Prevent that were due, or intended, to deal with integration
and cohesion matters actually have come to be seen in the light
of counter-terrorism measures rather than in their appropriate
light, which is why one of the points that we have in our Structural
Reform Plan is to review the Prevent strand and to clearly separate
Prevent and integration, so to clearly separate what are appropriately
matters for the Home Office from matters which are appropriate
for the Communities and Local Government Department in relation
to integration and working with communities.
Q52 Mark Reckless: Home Secretary,
would you be able to update us on your thinking in respect of
the DNA database, particularly where we may be moving from the
most blanket retention before, at the suggestion of the previous
Government, for up to six years at least for adults to the Scottish
system? In particular, are we looking at something that is sort
of the minimum to comply with the European Court ruling and be
acceptable under Article 8, or are we looking to go further than
that because of what our views, as elected representatives, are
in respect of civil liberties?
Mrs May: Well, certainly we will
be introducing proposals in relation to the DNA database as part
of the Freedom Bill which will be introduced in the autumn, and
obviously Parliament will have a full opportunity to look at that
and to debate it at the time. The commitment within the Coalition
Agreement is that we take forward the DNA database based on the
Scottish model and that is what we are looking at, but I do find
it extraordinary that the previous Government wanted to maintain
the DNA of innocent people, but did not even have on its database
the DNA of everybody who is in prison who, by definition therefore,
have been found guilty of a crime.
Q53 Mark Reckless: In terms of the
retention of innocent people's data, my understanding is that
in Scotland there is the retention of people who are charged and
go before a court and are not convicted of, in particular, violent
and sexual offences. Is the suggestion, therefore, still that
we would be looking to retain those people or, because they are
innocent and not convicted, would we be looking to remove those
from the database?
Mrs May: Our thinking currently,
as I say, in the Coalition Agreement is that we base what we are
doing on the Scottish model and that is what we are looking at
doing.
Q54 Chair: In the meantime, Home
Secretary, I wonder whether you have seen the Select Committee's
last report into the database in which we talked about the ability
of people to get a decision from local chief constables in consistency,
so, if you write to one local police authority, you get a reply
and, if you write to another, you do not. In the interim, are
there any proposals to try and streamline this process so that
people just get answers? Our colleague, the Member for Hammersmith
and Fulham, had been writing for six months to the West Midlands
Police just to ask if they had his DNA database when he was asked
to give it. Is there anything that we can do before we get to
a position where we have legislation?
Mrs May: I am very happy to look
at the issue that you have raised, Chairman. It is not my job
to tell police forces how to respond to letters that they receive,
it is not my job to tell police forces how to do operational matters,
but I am very happy to look at the issue that you have raised
about the inconsistency of treatment of this.
Q55 Mark Reckless: A further question
with respect to CCTV, given that very many systems are privately
owned and operated in addition to the issues we have with local
authorities that they are not always working, what would the Home
Office propose to do to ensure that, to the extent that we do
have CCTV cameras recording images and having that potential infringement
of privacy, albeit perhaps justified, a higher proportion of those
CCTV cameras work and provide images which can actually be helpful
in prosecuting the right suspects?
Mrs May: Well, the commitment
we have, and, I must say, CCTV is an extremely useful tool and
has been an extremely useful tool for the police and it is important
that we are not suggesting that suddenly CCTV is something that
should not exist, as is sometimes suggested, we are not suggesting
that at all, but what we are going to look at though is the regulation
of CCTV, and it is precisely across these issues about how long
images can be held for and access to them and things like that
that we feel it is necessary to look at the regulation of CCTV,
and that is the commitment and that is what we will be doing.
Indeed, the last Government had at a late stage appointed a temporary
regulator in these matters and I think themselves recognised that
this was an area where more needed to be done. In CCTV, beyond
what we had originally said, I have decided to include automatic
number plate recognition in the work on CCTV partly as a result
of the circumstances that have arisen in Birmingham recently and
the use of ANPR.
Chair: On that point, I am sure Mr McCabe
would like to ask a question about Birmingham.
Q56 Steve McCabe: On that very point,
Home Secretary, as I understand it, what happened in Birmingham
was that cameras that were funded from a counter-terrorism budget
were erected by the Safer City Partnership apparently without
consultation or any noticeable consultation with anyone. I wonder,
are you going to be asking for a report of what happened because
it seems to me that the general feeling there is that the positive
arguments for CCTV have been undermined by what seems to have
been a very peculiar episode?
Mrs May: Indeed, I think a very
heavy-handed approach was taken to it and I think it is entirely
right that things are pulled back and, as I understand it, proper
consultation is now taking place. I am aware that there was a
sort of public meeting/rally a week or two ago and I think people
were able to make their feelings known on this particular issue,
and I have been hearing reports from the locality about people's
feelings on that issue and that is why I am going to take this
into the work that we are doing.
Q57 Mr Burley: Can I ask you, Home
Secretary, to give some comfort to those that worry about the
implications for personal safety and indeed national security
from the Government's proposals to enhance liberty by reducing
surveillance and reducing the retention of the data?
Mrs May: Yes, this perhaps goes
to the heart of what we want to do, as a government, of rebalancing
national security and civil liberties, and I use that word "rebalancing",
but we need our national security in order to be able to enjoy
our civil liberties, so it is not a zero-sum game, but I think
it is right that we take a look at the surveillance society. There
has been a lot of comment, particularly, about the sort of people
who can have access to individuals' homes, the sort of people
who can have access to information about individuals, and the
way in which local authorities use RIPA, for example, is something
that we will specifically look at. Fundamentally underlying what
we want to do is my recognition that the first duty of Government
is to protect the public, to protect the citizens, so what we
will be doing is ensuring that we have the right powers to protect
people, but, as has been implied in a number of questions on a
number of issues this morning, sadly, what happens is, if those
powers are abused or misused or go too far, then it brings the
whole concept into disrepute and people start to feel uncomfortable
with it and people start to say that this is not right, and we
have got to restore that balance for people.
Q58 Mr Burley: In the Queen's Speech,
the Government promised a Freedom or Great Repeal Bill and we
are just wondering which Home Office rules and regulations you
thought might be candidates for repeal under that Bill.
Mrs May: Well, we now in fact
have two processes we are undergoing at the moment. We have the
Freedom Bill which will be introduced in the autumn, and issues
like the DNA database, the regulation of CCTV, looking at extending
the Freedom of Information Act, these are some of the issues that
will be in that Freedom Bill. Alongside that, there is a repeal
process, some of which may go into the Freedom Bill, some of which
will be more ongoing where the Deputy Prime Minister has launched,
as you are probably aware, a call to the public to make proposals
for laws that can be repealed, and obviously those are now coming
in and I have yet to look at the input from those comments to
see which might be appropriate to go into the Freedom Bill.
Q59 Steve McCabe: Can I just go back
to the question of terrorism and security for a split second.
I just wanted to know, did you consult with the police before
your announcement on section 44 in the House last week, and what
has the police response been to your proposal?
Mrs May: I did consult with the
police before I made the announcement in the House. The announcement
was made and the new guidance is in place and the police are operating
under the new guidance that has been issued to them. I remind
the Committee, Chairman, that the reason for coming to the House
with that announcement was triggered by the fact that the arrangements
that had previously been in place had been declared illegal by
the European Court.
Q60 Steve McCabe: Can I just ask
on that point, have you got any plans to look at section 60 of
the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act which, it could be argued,
is open to the same potential abuse as section 44?
Mrs May: Well, section 60 is of
course much more restricted than section 44 was in a number of
ways, not least the period of time over which that particular
power is available to the police, 24 hours or a maximum of 48
hours as opposed to the 28 days, and it is much more localised
in terms of where it can be put into place. Certainly, in the
counter-terrorism review, we will be looking further at section
44 and at what might be appropriate in the future there.
Q61 Chair: Can you just update the
Committee, because we produced a report on this in the last session,
on the case of Gary McKinnon, and perhaps I can just remind you
of what was said previously. The Deputy Prime Minister said, "Gary
McKinnon has been hung out to dry by a British Government desperate
to appease its American counterparts". Your predecessor,
now that you are the Home Secretary of course, Chris Grayling,
said, "There is no doubt that an offence has been committed.
Gary McKinnon has admitted that, but why on earth is this trial
not taking place in the United Kingdom?" and the Prime Minister
said, as Leader of the Opposition, "I am disappointed that
some of the Members of Parliament who signed up to do something
about this did not follow through when it came to the vote".
That is a clear indication that the position taken by the previous
Government was wrong. The case is now with you. Obviously, you
did not know you were going to be the Home Secretary. I think
we voted together on this issue in the House. What is the current
position? You have had eight weeks to consider the McKinnon case.
Mrs May: Yes, the current position,
Chairman, and I am grateful for the opportunity for outlining
it, is, when I became Home Secretary, about two weeks after that
time there was due to be a judicial review case being heard. Gary
McKinnon's legal representation had asked that consideration of
that case be deferred so that they could put further representations
in. I decided to agree to that deferral and that further representations
could be made to me. I have received those representations. I
am taking legal advice on the representations and we will be considering
that legal advice and those representations in the coming weeks.
Q62 Chair: Do we have a timetable
because, obviously, Mrs Sharp, who is Gary's mother, and others
are very concerned about the length of time it has taken, and
you have a balance to strike when we are dealing with one of our
closest allies? Are you getting any pressure from the Americans
to try and make sure you make this decision quickly?
Mrs May: I think what I would
say, Chairman, is that I am well aware of the feelings about this
case from a variety of sources. I am also well aware that the
Home Secretary has a particular role in this and it is important
that I recognise the legal framework within which I am operating
in relation to this case. I also understand the comments that
you have made from Mr McKinnon's mother about the length of time.
It obviously did take some time for representations to be received
and those are being properly looked at, and the assurance I would
give to this Committee is that I hesitate to put an absolute deadline
on this because I think it is appropriate that I look at those
representations and the advice I have received on them properly
and consider it properly rather than trying to do so within an
artificial timescale that might be imposed.
Chair: Home Secretary, you have been
here for an hour and 21 minutes, answered over 70 questions and
you have just started after eight weeks, so goodness knows how
long you will be here after you have been the Home Secretary for
six months, but we are extremely grateful; you have covered a
wide variety of subjects. We will be seeing your junior ministers
over the next three weeks. Thank you very much for coming in.
|
