House of Commons Home Affairs Committee

The work of the

Oral and written evidence

16 July 2013 Rt Hon MP, Home Secretary

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 16 July 2013

HC 235-i Published on 8 October 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £6.00

The Home Affairs Committee

The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the and its associated public bodies.

Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Chris Ruane MP (Labour, Vale of Clwyd) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North)

The following Members were also members of the Committee during the parliament.

Rt Hon Alun Michael MP (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Karl Turner MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East)

Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Tom Healey (Clerk), Robert Cope (Second Clerk), Eleanor Scarnell (Committee Specialist), Andy Boyd (Senior Committee Assistant), Michelle Garratty (Committee Assistant), Iwona Hankin (Committee Support Officer) and Alex Paterson (Select Committee Media Officer).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Home Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3276; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].

List of witnesses

Tuesday 16 July 2013 Page

Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Home Secretary Ev 1

List of written evidence

Page

1 Letter from Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Home Secretary Ev 14

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidence

Taken before the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday 16 July 2013

Members present: Keith Vaz (Chair)

Nicola Blackwood Steve McCabe Mr James Clappison Mark Reckless Michael Ellis Chris Ruane Lorraine Fullbrook Mr David Winnick Dr Julian Huppert ______

Examination of Witness

Witness: Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Home Secretary, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Home Secretary, my apologies for Q4 Chair: Did it then come back or did it stay in keeping you waiting. I know you must be extremely Jordan? Or was it just hired? busy. We apologise. Our last two witnesses were very Mrs May: I have to say, Chairman, that beyond its interesting to the Committee. arriving in Jordan and Abu Qatada getting off it, I Thank you very much for coming today. The last time really had little interest in what was happening to the you appeared here before us, you spent 25 minutes plane. If you wish to know where the plane went to, talking about Abu Qatada. On behalf of the I am very happy to— Committee, could I thank you for your personal efforts in ensuring that Abu Qatada finally made it on to a plane and out of the country? It must be a source Q5 Chair: No, no, I am very happy with it. We saw of great satisfaction to you that this chapter has been him getting on, and we saw him getting off, so I closed. Are you satisfied that that is now the end of assume he is still there—but we paid the cost. the matter; there is no risk that he might be sent back Let us move on. We have just heard evidence from to us? Mick Creedon, and you, no doubt, like the Committee, Mrs May: I am satisfied that it is the end of the matter, have tried to absorb the very useful report that Mr Chairman. Thank you for your kind remarks. I should Creedon has produced on Operation Herne. We have say that an awful lot of people have worked very hard heard the apology from the Commissioner to the on this, some of them who have been working hard families of those whose children had died and whose on it for quite a considerable period of time. A real identities had been used. Was the Commissioner right effort was put in by officials in the Home Office, and to apologise for this, and would you like to add by others, our ambassador in Amman and others, to anything to what he has said about the use of the ensure that we could achieve this, and obviously by identities of dead children in those circumstances? working with the Jordanian Government. I am Mrs May: As I understand it, the Commissioner satisfied in the assurances that we received from them, apologised for the shock and offence that was caused and the Treaty, both of which enabled Abu Qatada to by this. Obviously, at the time when it was first be deported. suggested that this might have been the practice, I think many people were very concerned to hear that Q2 Chair: Do you have today a figure for us as to it was a practice, and, I think, welcomed the fact that the final cost of the Abu Qatada case? Or if you do Pat Gallan, when she appeared before your not have it today, can you write to us with the cost? Committee, indicated that this was no longer the The last cost we had was £1.7 million. Would you be practice, and, indeed, could not take place under the able to let us have those figures? regulatory system that is now in place. I understand Mrs May: I won’t be able to let you have a complete the significant concerns that people had that this was cost, Chairman, because some of the figures will relate a practice that was used by the police. to activity by the police and others. As you will be aware, we do not normally reveal those figures. The figure of £1.7 million which you received, I believe is Q6 Chair: You of course have deprecated that a figure which predominantly relates to legal costs. Of practice? course, some money was taken from Abu Qatada’s Mrs May: I have been clear that I completely frozen assets here in the UK, some £220,000, to cover understand why people are concerned at that practice, some of those legal costs. that the practice was used. We are going back, of course, some years in relation to how this came about. Q3 Chair: His final departure: was that on a plane As I understand it, and obviously from the figures that that we paid for, the British taxpayer? Or was that have been released today, Chief Constable Creedon paid for the Jordanian authorities? has suggested that some 42 dead children’s identities Mrs May: We provided the plane. may have been used in fake identities. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Ev 2 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP

Q7 Chair: Do you think the families ought to be that he has been able to get to the truth—I think if he contacted, because clearly some families, after Pat is able to, this is the quickest way of doing it—but Gallan appeared before this Committee, immediately that if he has not been able to get to the truth, if he contacted the . Do you think that feels he has not been able to get all the evidence he all the families ought to have been informed about needs, to tell me whether he feels that a public inquiry this use? is necessary. I commit now that, if he says a public Mrs May: This is a very difficult question, which inquiry is necessary, then we will indeed set up a obviously the Chief Constable, in looking at this issue, judge-led public inquiry. has addressed today, because it is a balance between the natural concern of families perhaps to know Q10 Chair: That is extremely helpful, but of course whether or not the identity of their dead child has been the Prime Minister made another commitment, which used, but also a concern about some families where was that he would support an inquiry that had the perhaps this would reopen emotions on an issue which confidence of Doreen Lawrence and the Lawrence they have been able to move on from. Then on the family. He was very clear about that, and these two other side, of course, there is the question of those inquiries do not have the confidence of Doreen officers who were using those identities, who, if the Lawrence. We, on this Committee, have heard this for identities did become public, that could become ourselves when she sat before us last week. Although known to those they were working among as part of Mr Creedon has made it very clear that he would like their undercover jobs. to meet with her, and convince that she is wrong, or that he is right, and that she should support what he Q8 Chair: Would you like to see people informed, is doing, she has no confidence in it. You have quoted subject to those parameters? Mark Ellison, and he is not the decisive person in this, Mrs May: It is important that we recognise that when is he? The decisive person is Mrs Lawrence, and she we ask people to do very difficult jobs such as going said, “I have no confidence in it.” undercover, that there is an onus on ensuring a degree Mrs May: Doreen Lawrence has obviously made her of protection for them. If it is the case that they views clear to this Committee and in other ways, and become identified and potentially harm can come to as I said, I have met with her twice— them as a result, of course that first is a problem in Chair: Yes, you have. relation to those individuals, and also could mean that Mrs May: —and discussed what the Government is others will not undertake that work. Society asked doing in relation to this issue. I understand that her them to do that work, and I recognise the decision that preference is for a public inquiry to be set up now, the Chief Constable has taken today. and she is concerned about further delay. Mark Ellison has been working at this for a year, almost a year. He Q9 Chair: You have been very clear on the Lawrence is clear that he will be completed by the end of this case. You were pretty shocked when you heard about year. I think that is a possibility of getting to the truth, it and, indeed, made a statement to the House about of getting to the bottom of what happened, rather your great concern that undercover agents may have more quickly than if a public inquiry is set up. I am been involved in smearing the Lawrence family. You going to specifically him ask the question, to report asked Mick Creedon to look at this subject, and you whether or not he thinks that there is still a need for widened the scope of the Ellison inquiry. But we heard a public inquiry because he has not been able to get evidence from Doreen Lawrence last week, who was to the bottom of this, then I commit now that there sitting in the chair that you are sitting in at the will be a judge-led inquiry. moment, and she was very clear that she does not have Chair: And that commitment is very welcome. confidence in the inquiry at the moment, and that she Mrs May: And the other point, if I may, Chairman, I would prefer a public inquiry. Bearing in mind what have invited Doreen Lawrence to appoint somebody the Prime Minister has said, that everything is on the independent, to work alongside Mark Ellison to give table, do you think it would be right now to have a an increased level of confidence in the work that is public inquiry into these very serious allegations? being done, if she chooses to do so. Mrs May: As you say, Chairman, I was concerned by the serious allegations that have been made, and I Q11 Chair: Is that new as of today? Because we have recognise the concern and worry and anxiety that this not heard of this before? has raised with Doreen and other members of the Mrs May: I have spoken to her about this this Lawrence family. I have had the opportunity to talk to morning, yes. The Home Office has been in Doreen on two occasions now about that, and where discussions with Doreen’s representatives, and so this the Government is going on this, and I know that is an issue that I am making public for the first time, Mark Ellison, when he gave evidence before this but it is something that we have been discussing Committee, was clear that he did not feel that it was with her. right to have a public inquiry at this stage. So the position that I am in is that I believe it is right to allow Q12 Chair: That is extremely helpful. So the the Ellison review work to complete: he is clear that scenario is this: you have spoken to Doreen Lawrence that should be completed by the end of the year. Mick this morning. You have said to her that she and her Creedon’s work in relation to this in Operation Herne solicitors or representatives can appoint somebody to should, I believe, be completed by around the same work with Mark Ellison. If Mark Ellison decides a time. I am asking Mark Ellison, specifically, in his public inquiry is necessary, you will have a public report to report to me as to whether or not he believes inquiry, but at the moment, the Prime Minister’s offer, cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 3

16 July 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP which is that she has to be the decisive person in all understand why she said that to this Committee, and of this, is kind of left in abeyance until Mark Ellison why she feels like that. comes up with his recommendation. Or you are hoping that the basis change will convince her that Q15 Mr Winnick: Would you understand, as well, she should support it? that the manner in which at the moment a public Mrs May: What I am clear about, Chairman, is that I inquiry is not being accepted by you, the various am going to ask Mark Ellison specifically to answers you have given to the Chair and what has recommend whether he believes a public inquiry happened very recently, that it may appear to her should be held, and if he does, as I say, I am now rather like the objections to having a public inquiry committing to holding that judge-led inquiry. into the murder of Stephen and the failure of the Chair: That is very helpful. police at the time? As you know, the inquiry was Mrs May: But also I will look, even if he does not finally set up, but there was a great deal of opposition, say that he feels a public inquiry is necessary, at the and I remember it very well in the House, to having extent to which there is confidence in the work that any such inquiry. Can you see a similarity there? he has done. I think, as I say, his work is currently the Mrs May: If, at the end of the Ellison review, the best possibility of getting to the bottom of all of this recommendation is that a public inquiry should be as quickly as possible, but if it is clear that there is held, I have been absolutely clear that we will do that. not confidence in what he has done, then, obviously, I am not waiting until the end of that and saying I I will also consider the issue of a public inquiry. will take a decision then. I am saying if Mark Ellison recommends a public inquiry should be held, then I Q13 Chair: If he needs more help—because he is commit now that such an inquiry will be held. So I apparently working on this on his own; he made the hope that that would add an extra degree of confidence to this. But I fully appreciate that, when you have point that he has to read every document, along with spent as long as Doreen Lawrence has had to spend his junior—you will be able to give him whatever fighting to find the truth about not just having the support he needs? Because he told this Committee last individuals who murdered her son brought to justice, week he did not think he could conclude the first part but also fighting to find the truth of how the police until December this year, but if he comes to you and dealt with the case, and how they dealt with any says, “Well, actually, there are 50,000 documents allegations subsequently, then I can understand— here; I need to go and visit Mick Creedon, and I need Chair: Thank you. The final question, Mr Winnick? to do much more work,” you would be prepared to give him whatever he needed? Q16 Mr Winnick: As far as the use of the identity Mrs May: We have been clear that we will make of dead children is concerned and the report which resources available. I think what is happening is that has just come out, would you consider it morally Mark Ellison has obviously been in touch with Chief repugnant that the names of dead children were used Constable Creedon who, as you say, does want to have by undercover agents and sanctioned apparently at the an opportunity to meet Doreen, I think just to talk highest level? through, and part of it is going to try and persuade her Mrs May: As I understand it, it was sanctioned at high that what he was doing was absolutely right, but I levels within the police. I think that is what the Chief think he wants to ensure that she is fully aware of Constable has made clear. This was a practice that what he is doing, and what Operation Herne is. But was used by the Special Demonstration Squad and it is important that the review that Mark Ellison is possibly by others in the police— conducting is also able to work with the work that Mr Winnick: Was it morally repugnant? Mick Creedon is doing in Operation Herne, because Chair: Mr Winnick, I think we have an answer. We obviously there may be evidence from one of those must allow the Home Secretary. Thank you very that would impact on the other. much, Home Secretary. Chair: I speak for the Committee in saying we are Mr Winnick: She has not quite answered, with very grateful to you for the time and effort you have respect. Would you consider it morally repugnant? taken on this, especially the new appointment and the Mrs May: I recognise the degree of concern that offer that you made to Doreen Lawrence today. people have over this practice that was undertaken, and it is a practice that I think it is right that is no Q14 Mr Winnick: When Mrs Lawrence gave longer open to us. evidence to us the other week, Home Secretary, she said she had little confidence in the criminal justice Q17 Mr Clappison: Very briefly, Home Secretary. I system. Bearing in mind what has happened to her say, as an individual member of the Committee, and her family since the brutal murder of Stephen in having sat through the evidence about the undercover 1993, can you understand that sentiment? policing by the Special Demonstration Squad, that I Mrs May: I can entirely understand why she feels like have to say I found the evidence to be utterly bizarre. that, and I can also entirely understand her anxiety I also believe that the issues arising out of the Doreen that yet further allegations have come out in recent Lawrence case certainly need to be got to the bottom weeks, which add to the picture from her point of of, and I think you deserve strong support in your view, and from the public’s point of view, as well as efforts to get to the bottom of it in a thorough way to from our point of view, as to what was happening the satisfaction of all concerned, if possible. around the investigation into her son’s murder and the Can I just suggest to you that it is also important to subsequent years, but I can fully appreciate and keep a sense of balance in this, and to remember that cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Ev 4 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP there are many brave and professional police officers think it is important that we do provide for those cases who are going about their work, including in doing to be considered and looked at. undercover work, who help to keep the public safe. I think it is then important, both that if it is right for We always need to keep that in mind as well. criminal charges to be brought, the evidence is Mrs May: I think you are absolutely right in that, and followed where it leads. I also think it is important, in obviously there are some issues that have been raised terms of the operation of investigations, that lessons as a result of the work that Mick Creedon is doing are learnt if there are lesson to be learnt. Obviously, looking at the Special Demonstration Squad, which policing today is different than it was in some of the people have concerns about, in terms of some of the cases that we look at, but it is important to learn the operations. But also it is absolutely right to say that lesson. there are undercover police officers, who operated as part of that squad in the past, who operate today, in Q21 Chair: You do not agree with Mr Rupert often putting themselves in the potential of significant Murdoch that, in terms of the phone hacking harm and danger for the good of society in order to investigation, the police were being incompetent? help keep people safe and secure, and society asks Mrs May: If I am right, I think that was a quote that them to do that, and we owe them a duty of protection. was undertaken by somebody who was in a meeting and tape-recording it without his knowledge, so Q18 Nicola Blackwood: I just want to clarify this. talking about some of these matters, I am not sure Even if you were to set up a public inquiry is appropriate. immediately, surely such a public inquiry would have to wait until Operation Herne had completed its Q22 Chair: We heard last week from Cressida Dick investigation as to whether any criminal offences have that News International was not co-operating as much been permitted, because prosecutions otherwise would as it should do. Do you think they ought to? be undermined? Mrs May: When the police are investigating potential Mrs May: Yes, you are absolutely right. There is a criminal charges, I would hope that everybody would very real prospect that, even if a public inquiry was co-operate with the police in their investigations. I set up tomorrow, the judge would actually have to think what is important, as I say, as well as looking at defer taking evidence until the Operation Herne any criminal charges on these cases, and you have a investigation had taken place, and of course it is listed a number, Chairman, is that lessons are learnt if Operation Herne that has the potential to lead to they need to be learnt, in terms of how the police criminal charges, whereas a public inquiry of course approach particular matters and how they undertake would not do that. investigations. Chair: Let us move on to the uncontroversial subject Q19 Nicola Blackwood: So even while we can all of Europe, and the votes of yesterday, and one of the understand Mrs Lawrence’s position on this, in fact, Committee’s resident experts on European and Home to build up on the evidence which will be produced Affairs and Justice issues, Mr Reckless. from Operation Herne and Mr Ellison’s review would be a much better platform to make a decision about Q23 Mark Reckless: I think it started with the the direction of any such public inquiry? European constitution, and that was rejected in Mrs May: I believe it would be. I believe it is referendums in France and the Netherlands, and I important that we get to the bottom of this, and it is think after, what you would probably agree, were possible that that work, both Operation Herne and the fairly cosmetic changes, it was brought back under the Mark Ellison review, will do that. If it does not, we previous Government as the Lisbon Treaty. Are the will be in a better position to focus the inquiry, I think, opt-out and possible opt-in decisions we face Treaty on the issues relating to potential corruption in the decisions? police, and the whole question of use of undercover Mrs May: There are obviously two sets of these policing in that particular case. decisions. I am sure that I do not need to explain this to you, Mr Reckless, but for the avoidance of doubt, Q20 Chair: Before we move on to Europe, are you obviously for anything that is introduced as Justice concerned about all these various investigations, and Home Affairs, after the Lisbon Treaty, we have Weeting, Pinetree, Tuleta, Herne, Elveden, Yewtree, an ability to make a decision as to whether to opt in Pallial, Alice, Fernbridge, costing now £23 million, or opt out of those individual measures, and indeed 294 members of staff, five convictions, 34 people the vote yesterday the new regulation on Europol was charged: so much resource being used on all these one of those decisions. We then have this opt-in or historical investigations. Herne, indeed, 18 months to opt-out and, of course, the House of Commons two years, and absolutely no reports and no arrests. yesterday voted to opt out of around 130-odd Does this worry you as Home Secretary? measures that were pre the Lisbon Treaty. That is Mrs May: I think it is obviously important that a written into the Lisbon Treaty, and therefore is a right balance is struck in these matters, but I think it is that we have, as a result of what was negotiated at the important when we identify that there have been time of the Lisbon Treaty. But they are not Treaty issues around policing in the past or potential issues decisions in the sense of negotiating a new treaty about criminal acts in the past that people feel were which triggers other votes in this in Parliament. not investigated properly at the time, which, of course, in a lot of the cases in relation to child sexual Q24 Mark Reckless: Given the vote we had last exploitation that is the issue we are dealing with, I night on exercising the block opt-out, if, down the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 5

16 July 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP road, we fail to reach agreement, either within the Mrs May: Of course, there is an issue about the Government or with the European Commission, or relationship of the UK and UK courts to the European between Government and Parliament, will that leave Union and the operation of the European Court of us just with the block opt-out? Justice. I would also say that there is another issue, Mrs May: Following the opt-out, if the UK does not which underpins the whole question of whether we seek to opt in and is not accepted by the Commission should to seek to rejoin any of these measures, and and other member states for opting in on certain that is ensuring that our law enforcement agencies measures, then it would be opted out. have the tools necessary to be able to do the job that, I, the Government and the public want to do of catching Q25 Mr Clappison: In looking at all of this, Mr criminals and reducing crime and fighting crime. Reckless rightly refers to the constitutional treaty and, of course, we were told at the time that the key Q27 Dr Huppert: Thank you, Chairman, and I agree difference between the constitutional treaty, which with what you were just saying that the policy has to became defunct, and the Treaty of Lisbon was that we be about giving the police the tools that they need. were not signing up to the area of Freedom, Security Can I just be clear though, do you agree, as Justice and Justice—Justice and Home Affairs, which became Secretary said that he was clear last night, that it is Freedom, Security and Justice—in which the in the national interests to rejoin the European Arrest European Union has great ambitions. Warrant, suitably reformed, Europol, Eurojust, indeed Are you fully aware of the significance of this, the all the list as in the Command Paper 8671? fact that it was one of the reasons which was given as Mrs May: Yes, that is Government position that we to why a referendum was not required on the Treaty believe that those 35 measures that are in that of Lisbon, and the fact that the European Union has Command Paper 8671 are ones that it is in our interest large ambitions in this area, and that any measures to rejoin. They are largely about cross-border work, which we now opt into or retain as a result of the co-operation in the fight against crime. Obviously, the decision on the block opt-out will be subject to the majority of issues would relate to Home Office jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and, matters. Some obviously relate to the Ministry of therefore, very different propositions from anything Justice, but matters like rejoining the current Europol that we may have been party to under the old justice and the issue of the European Arrest Warrant, as I amendment measures. have said; I think that is in the national interest, Mrs May: I fully accept the point you make about the because I think it is important to have that capacity proposals that were put at the time in relation to the available to our police force. constitutional treaty, and the extent to which that was Chair: Thank you very much. Let us move on to or was not different from the Lisbon Treaty, and, counter-terrorism. Michael Ellis? obviously, I, as you did, at the time, and a number of others, prior to the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, would Q28 Michael Ellis: Home Secretary, can I just move have preferred to have seen a referendum vote for the the subject on a little to issues relating to counter- British people on that particular matter. terrorism and criminality, and I am sorry to go back The ambitions of the European Union are exactly one to Abu Qatada, who you may think you completely of the issues that we have concerns about in a number got rid of, at least in these questioning sessions, but of areas, and this was, for example, why we are there has been some controversy surrounding concerned about the new Europol regulation, which members of his family who remain in the United suggests that it would be possible for Europol to Kingdom. Do you feel that the Home Office has effectively direct police forces to conduct sufficient powers to deal with situations like this investigations, to share information, that, for national where people are successfully extradited from this security reasons, we would not wish to be sharing. country, perhaps in circumstances where it is declared That is precisely why we think those issues need to that their presence in the is not be addressed before we are willing to opt into that conducive to the public good, but members of their new regulation. So I recognise that there are issues, family remain in the United Kingdom? Do you think and one needs to look at these very carefully and, of that should be the case? Do you think it should be course, the European Court of Justice jurisdiction does looked at separately? Or are you happy with the law raise another aspect to this, and one that we have to that currently stands? look at very carefully, and we have done. Mrs May: Well, obviously I would not comment in public on an individual case in relation to any Q26 Mr Clappison: Just one final point on this. immigration decisions. I have said in public that Anybody listening to the debate yesterday would have obviously his family will have a decision to make seen that it was quite a technical subject, but isn’t the themselves as to where they wish to be and where long and short of it this, that the issue at stake here is they see their future. One of the issues— whether we make our criminal justice subject to the Michael Ellis: Generally speaking. jurisdiction of our courts, or whether we allow the Mrs May: Generally speaking, one of the issues that European Union to take it over bit by bit so that the we are looking at is this whole question of decisions are taken and laws are made by the deportations, the length of time that it takes in relation European Commission, the European Parliament, the to deportations and the rules surrounding those. Of Council of Ministers, under the jurisdiction of the course, the current situation is that individual European Courts of Justice? That is the fundamental immigration decisions will be taken on a case by case issue, isn’t it? basis. But I think we do need to look at the process cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Ev 6 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP of deportation and the ability for this to be such a impact that you feel that the wider knowledge of long, drawn-out process, which means, of course, that programmes such as those discussed by Mr Snowden it can take, as we saw in this particular case, many and others has on the United Kingdom’s counter- years before somebody can be deported. terrorism capabilities. I appreciate that there may be limits about what you can say in relation to questions Q29 Michael Ellis: Far too long. That leads me on of this sort, but do you think that these sorts of to my next question, which is about foreign national revelations are injurious to the national interest? offenders. I think you have spoken before in the Mrs May: I have a policy, indeed across Government House, if I remember correctly, about the appeals we have a policy, that we do not comment on process. Clearly, it can take far too long and we have information that has arisen as a result of leaks that heard from a previous witness in this Committee have taken place. What I would say, though, generally, about the willingness of lawyers to proceed with a is that leaked information can be injurious to the large number of appeals, which can delay processes operation of measures in relation to national security, for years. Now, that is not necessarily the lawyers’ and I think that is a matter of concern not just to fault but maybe it is the fault of the system for Government here in the UK. We have been absolutely allowing so many avenues of appeal. Do you have clear in relation to what has been suggested in this any plans to deal with that and perhaps expedite the particular case, obviously as the Foreign Secretary process somewhat? made clear in the statement that he gave shortly after Mrs May: Yes. If I may, two parts to my answer. The this case first came to light, that as far as the UK is first is we have in the Crime and Courts Act made concerned we have a very good and strict regulatory some change in certain cases to enable us to deport framework in which any decisions in relation to people and for them to then have an out-of-country intelligence are taken. appeal rather than having an in-country appeal. But I think this is an area where we do need to look further Q33 Chair: On counter-terrorism, the Prime and that is what I would anticipate doing in the Minister, of course, when he was Leader of the Immigration Bill, which the Government will be Opposition made it very clear he wanted to ban Hizb bringing forward later this year. I think we need to ut-Tahrir. When he sees you at Cabinet every Tuesday look at the number of appeals processes that are morning, does he ask you about this? Does he say available to people. why is it that you as Home Secretary have not been able to do what he would like you to do, which is Q30 Michael Ellis: Do you think the Immigration to ban this organisation? What is the problem about Bill that you propose for later this year will contain banning this organisation? measures that will reduce the number and avenue of Mrs May: Well, the issue is that there are a set of appeal open to people who wish to obstruct and defeat criteria that need to be met before it is possible to the system of getting them out of this country? exercise proscription. As you will know, Chairman, Mrs May: It is my intention that the Immigration Bill we have recently proscribed a couple more will enable us to deport people more swiftly and to organisations, one of them Boko Haram. Criteria have take action against people more swiftly. It is, of to be met before it is possible to proscribe an course, right that people should have an avenue of organisation and we have over the last three years appeal and that it should be possible for their case to looked at Hizb ut-Tahrir and the possibility of be heard and properly heard, but I think members of proscription. the public get very upset when they see people—and On a wider point about proscription, the question not this is not just in deportation cases but in other in relation to that organisation but more generally, of cases—going from appeal to appeal, trying one route course, did come to the fore following the incident in to stay here, appealing, finishing that route, trying Woolwich, the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby. another route. I think we do need to look at that Chair: Yes, I was coming on to that. whole system. Mrs May: This is one of the issues that the extremism taskforce the Prime Minister has set up will look at, Q31 Michael Ellis: Yes. There are even appeals and I am keen that we look at whether there is, if you within an appeal, so that a particular decision made like, a potential banning order that might be not quite by one court can be questioned, in relation to bail or proscription but different criteria. something of that sort, when it is not even an appeal about the whole generality of the case. There are Q34 Chair: This is kind of class B, it is not quite subdivisions of appeal, which can cause further delay. proscription but it is the next tier down? Mrs May: Indeed, and as I say many people feel that Mrs May: We are looking at whether it would be right they look at a system where people are able to to have something in that sort of category and, if so, effectively stay in the UK for a considerable period of what that would cover. time because they are going through some of these different and lengthy processes and we want to Q35 Chair: Because the concern—and I was present address that. in the debate and you know all about it because it was your order—is over people like Anjem Choudary, Q32 Michael Ellis: Now, Edward Snowden, who is, whose organisations are proscribed. They then come as you know, a fugitive and has apparently today back with different names: Islam UK, Al-Muhajiroun, asked Russia formally for asylum, is wanted on Call to Submission, Islamic Path, the London School espionage charges. I would like to ask you about the of Sharia. This is not an advertisement for him, but cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 7

16 July 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP the fact is they can form themselves in different longer be part of the Prevent strategy—the integration organisations amoeba-like. Will you seek to try to stop work would go to the Communities and Local that happening with your second tier proscription? Government Department—but also that Prevent Mrs May: Well, you are absolutely right that, of would not just look at violent extremism but would course, a group of people can reform into a slightly look at extremism generally and would look at all different group with a different name. Of course, in types of extremism. I think it was right that we took relation to that individual and the groups that he has that view and we have since then been developing set up over time, they have successively been work. There is some very good work that has been proscribed. done by Prevent coordinators at local level in relation Chair: Then they form themselves into another group, to information available in schools. There is also work which you then have to proscribe. that has been done with universities in relation to Mrs May: The purpose of looking at the banning those extremist preachers who might be looking to use order is about: do we have all the powers that we need universities as a platform for their preaching. But to ensure that we are dealing with those who would there is more that we can be doing, I think, to work be promoting extremism and hatred on the streets? with a variety of organisations, and you mentioned People are raising the right question as to whether the prisons. I think that is another area, indeed, where we Government has those powers and that is something do need to look at it. we are actively looking at. Q39 Mr Winnick: Were you much encouraged by Q36 Chair: We understand that Ofcom are to the reaction in the community at large, all sections of investigate comments that he made immediately after Woolwich, whether or not they were offensive. At the the community, to the foul murder in Woolwich and time, you said that the Government had to look at the way in which so many connected with the Muslim whether we have the right processes, the right rules in community made it perfectly clear that their attitude place, in relation to what is being beamed into towards this horrifying murder was no less than the people’s homes. Have you done anything about that? rest of us? Because obviously when you saw Anjem Choudary Mrs May: I absolutely agree. I think it was very good on “Newsnight” or whatever it was you were very to see so many people in the Muslim community concerned that he was given the oxygen of publicity. coming forward in that way and making clear their Have you taken any action? condemnation of the attack that had taken place, the Mrs May: This is one of the issues that is being murder that had taken place. looked at as part of the work from the extremism Chair: Thank you. We will move to asylum and taskforce and we will be looking at that. We are immigration. progressing a number of avenues of work in relation to the extremism taskforce, but the question of access Q40 Steve McCabe: I will lead on immigration. to broadcast material such as this is one that we will Home Secretary, I think there is broad agreement that need to look at. It is an issue. There are a number of net migration is down by about 82,000 now. Are you issues around the use of, for example, the internet in satisfied with the accounting measures used to help us relation to extremist material, just as there have been arrive at that figure? issues that the Government has been taking up in Mrs May: Well, obviously, the way in which we are relation to child abuse images on the internet. The able to arrive at that figure uses some of the ability to put things on the internet is one of the things international passenger survey material. In due course, that we need to look at. of course, the Government is committed to exit checks, which will enable us to have a rather sharper Q37 Chair: Yes, but Maria Miller is chairing that ability to find those who have exited. work and the Prime Minister is chairing the extremism taskforce. This is core Home Office work. Are you able to put in your influence over what is going on Q41 Steve McCabe: Thank you. Obviously, student there because obviously it affects your portfolio in a visitor visas, which have grown by about 30,000 over very big way? two years, do not count in the net migration figures, Mrs May: Yes, Chairman. but I notice that the Independent Borders Inspector did say he was concerned they could be subject to Q38 Mr Winnick: It may be outside your ministerial abuse. Are you taking any particular steps to look at responsibilities as such, but as a member of the those visas? Cabinet, do you feel that more could be done by Mrs May: We have looked at that and some work is schools, colleges, prisons, in dealing and trying to deal being done to analyse those who have been coming more effectively with extremism, those who preach on student visitor visas. That work has shown that, in hatred and, indeed, do their utmost to convert the fact, there is not abuse taking place there. The more vulnerable, at least the more vulnerable majority of people who come to study for a short mentally, to extremist causes and terrorism? period of time are genuinely coming, a lot of them, to Mrs May: I think this is an area where we could, learn English language, and, in fact, if you look at the indeed, be doing more. When we came into areas where student visas have been reducing because Government we took a decision around the issue of of concerns about abuse, that is not mirrored in the the Prevent strategy that had been set up: two key increase in student visitor visas. We have done some decisions, one of which was that integration would no work to do further analysis of student visitor visas. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Ev 8 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP

Q42 Steve McCabe: Thank you. We heard David I am sure you know it is a card-based system. It does Wood give evidence earlier this afternoon, the current not provide very much money to the people who get interim director. He told Mr Clappison that it was his it and they cannot save up, they cannot use public belief that most illegal immigrants in this country are transport, they cannot buy warm coats and things like people who come on a visa and overstay, but that. It has also been suggested it is very expensive to surprisingly he went on to say that there is no effort run and costs £2 million to £4 million a year just to made to identify people who are coming to the end of run the system. Assuming all of that is correct, would their visa so that they can be tracked. Of course, there you agree with their suggestion that it should just be are no checks on passports when they leave the rolled into the section 95 support, which would save country so he has absolutely no way of working from the taxpayer money? that initial information to determine how many people Mrs May: Well, we have been doing a piece of work are overstaying. We were quite surprised to hear that. now constantly looking at the asylum issue, the way Are you surprised? we deal with asylum requests and, of course, looking Mrs May: First of all, it is absolutely right that the into asylum support. The sum of money that is spent majority of people who are here illegally will be on asylum support has significantly reduced over the people who came here legally and have overstayed years, partly, of course, because the numbers of people their visas. Secondly, one of the issues that we are receiving asylum support have reduced. There is addressing and that I have been able to address always a balance that needs to be achieved here in because of the changes that I have brought about by terms of the administration of a scheme and ensuring abolishing the UK Border Agency—something I that a scheme is operating properly for those who are know that this Committee called for for some in receipt of these arrangements. We do from time to considerable time—and splitting it into UK Visas and time look at how we undertake this and with every Immigration and Immigration Enforcement, it has effort to make sure that we do it as cost effectively as been possible to put a much greater focus on how possible for the taxpayer. we operate in Immigration Enforcement. Under Dave Wood some changes are already taking place in a Q45 Dr Huppert: I think that is helpful. It will fit in much sharper focus on enforcement in that part of the very well with our inquiry. One of the other issues is, Home Office. As part of that, I believe that it will be as you know, the Government has a policy of trying possible for us to make some changes that would to encourage people to work rather than to rely on enable us to be more proactive in ensuring that people the state for support. People who have been hanging who are at the point where their visa has expired are around, in some cases waiting for more than six not then overstaying. This is a significant piece of months, to get an initial answer from what was the work. The whole change that we are bringing about Border Agency, now the Home Office, on an asylum to modernise what was UKBA will take some application are not allowed to work and must instead considerable time to be able to ensure that that is in get support. A number of details about that. Do you place and, indeed, there will be a constant need to think it would be sensible in the spirit of other improve and to develop. But I think this has enabled Government policy to allow them to work so they us to say, “How can we better enforce?” Sadly, for were not dependent on the support, particularly where many years the situation that you described, Mr we have been keeping them waiting for more than McCabe, was the case, but we are now able to start six months? the process of addressing it. Mrs May: I think it is right that we maintain the policy that we have, which is that that is not available Q43 Steve McCabe: When do you think it might to somebody until they have been here for 12 months, start happening? The specific thing about tracking but I also think it is right that one of the focuses we people when you already have information, I should have is on trying to ensure that we give people genuinely say I was surprised that there was not any decisions within a reasonable space of time. focus on that. I just wondered when that change might Obviously, for some people there are difficulties in start to happen. relation to the decision because some of the cases are Mrs May: I am not sure I am able to give you a date very complex, but I think one of the focuses we about this because I think we have to think very certainly have is on trying to ensure that looking carefully how the systems are set up. One of the big ahead we are able to give people a decision in a challenges here is modernising the systems that the reasonable space of time so that they are not finding two parts of the organisation use—and are used, themselves waiting for a significant time. But I think indeed, across the whole platform in relation to 12 months is the appropriate cut-off. immigration—to improve the information that is available on which action can be taken. Q46 Dr Huppert: You have presumably seen that the number of people who we do not give an initial Q44 Dr Huppert: We have had various interesting decision to within six months has been going up. Does sessions. We have been doing an inquiry into asylum that concern you? Will you be making sure that that and we have had some particular issues raised with does not happen? us. One of them is to do with the support that is given Mrs May: Obviously, as that number has been going for asylum seekers, particularly the Azure card, up, the number we have been able to deal with within section 4 support. The evidence that we have been the 12 months has been increasing. The performance given from Still Human, Still Here among others is within 12 months has improved. But yes, we always that this is a very expensive way of providing support. have to be looking at how we deal with these issues cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 9

16 July 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP and always looking to ensure that we are providing about the culture of the organisation, which I a good performance and, where we can, improving explained when I made my statement to the House. that performance. Q52 Chair: You did and it was a very welcome Q47 Dr Huppert: I think the 12 months is statement, but you cannot go to Sainsbury’s and buy conclusions of cases rather than initial decisions, but a new bottle of culture. You really have to change the I think that is a statistical thing and I may be wrong people in there and change the motivation because on this. Can I just be clear that you think that asylum you described it as “closed, secretive and defensive”, seekers who have been waiting for 12 months, all of which must rank alongside “not fit for purpose” as them, if they are kept waiting for that long, they one of the great statements any Home Secretary should then be allowed to work? makes about the immigration service. When do you Mrs May: Well, I believe that six months is not the think it will cease to be closed, secretive and right period— defensive? Mrs May: Well, what I hope that you will see over Q48 Dr Huppert: But 12 months would be? the coming time is a gradual improvement in relation Mrs May: I am right in saying, I think, that there have to that. I do not think there is a day when you been court cases in Europe suggesting that 12 months suddenly say, “Right, this organisation is no longer is appropriate, but I am very happy to write to you, closed, secretive and defensive.” I think this is a Dr Huppert, about that. process that takes place.

Q49 Mr Clappison: Home Secretary, one of the Q53 Chair: Two years? objectives the Coalition Government set itself was on Mrs May: You are right, you cannot buy a bottle of net migration. What is your view of what has been culture. It is about leadership. It is about motivation happening with that? for people, but I hope you will see already that in Mrs May: Well, the figures are very clear that net terms of the sort of information that is being provided migration has fallen by more than a third since 2010, there is a willingness to look at that. There is a lot of since the Government came into power. I think that is work to be done here because the management a direct reflection of the policies that we have information systems need to be looked at as part of introduced, of the work that we have done to ensure the modernisation of the service, as part of this that we remove abuse from, for example, the student transformation that needs to take place, in order to visa system, and we remain on course to do what we ensure that the correct information is available on hope to do as a Government, what we have set as our which judgments can be made and matters taken aim, of reducing net migration from the hundreds of forward. thousands to the tens of thousands. Q54 Chair: As far as G4S and Serco are concerned, they have 11 contracts with the Home Office worth Q50 Chair: We have not seen you since you 1 abolished the UKBA and, of course, we are very £118 million. Mark Harper said in the House grateful that you have done so, but we were a bit yesterday that Francis Maude had started a review of surprised to read the email from Mark Sedwill saying the issue of quality and charging. He mentioned charging; he did not mention quality. Are you looking that he thought that everyone was in the same job at carefully at these contracts to make sure that they have the same desk doing the same work answerable to the not done to the Home Office what they did to the same boss. That is not the case, is it? There are going Ministry of Justice? to be changes? Mrs May: Some work has already been done within Mrs May: Indeed. First of all, obviously there is the the Home Office on this. The Permanent Secretary structural change. It is now part of the Home Office. initiated that work at an early stage obviously when There are two interim Director Generals over the two this issue surfaced. But there is this wider piece of areas. work being done across Government and so obviously what the Home Office has done now fits into what the Q51 Chair: Yes, but David Wood is the same. He Cabinet Office is doing in looking at all Government was the old Chief Executive. Sarah Rapson we agree contracts with these organisations. is new. Mrs May: Has come in, yes, and, all right, Dave Q55 Chair: But you are looking at it as well Wood was the Deputy Chief in the previous specifically? You want to do what Chris Grayling has organisation. He is the interim DG for the done, which is to say— Immigration Enforcement. Sarah Rapson is the Mrs May: We have been looking at it within the interim DG for UK Visas and Immigration. They have Home Office and that will now fit into the wider work been looking at the teams that they need to build that is being undertaken by the Cabinet Office. around them at that senior level and there have been a number of changes taking place, a number of new Q56 Chair: I am sure you saw the report we people brought in or going to be brought in in terms published last week. We were very concerned at the of those teams. I think with UKBA there are issues increase in the level of consultancy fees from £27,000 about making sure the processes are right, about to half a million at the same time as there was a making sure that everything is being done as efficiently as possible, and also that there are issues 1 An annual value of £153 million cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Ev 10 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP reduction in staff. Are you concerned about half a Q61 Dr Huppert: Can I firstly just ask about the million pounds being spent on consultants? evaluation framework? I asked a written question that Mrs May: I always want to ensure that where was answered on 15 November 2010 about what was consultants are being employed it is absolutely right happening about that for the new drugs strategy and proper to employ consultants to do particular because obviously you have to know how you are pieces of work. Across the board at the Home Office going to measure success and if a strategy is working. we have a very good record on reducing consultancy The answer I got said that it would be published in costs. December. I asked another question in June of this year and was told it was still being worked on. When Q57 Chair: But this has gone up? do you think we will get that evaluation strategy Mrs May: That one has gone up, but I am saying framework? across the board at the Home Office we have a good Mrs May: Well, I think it would be unwise of me record in reducing consultancy costs. In the last from what you just said to suggest a date by which financial year I think we reduced consultancy costs by you will get that evaluation strategy. This is an issue about 58%. that we have been looking at very long and hard Chair: Sure, but it has gone up, yes. because, as you will know, we have introduced a Mrs May: Yes, and there will be some parts where number of pilot schemes that are operating on a that is what will happen. payment by results basis. We are looking at how we make sure that we get that right and in terms of Q58 Chair: You don’t mind about that? obviously making sure that taxpayers’ money is being Mrs May: As long as each case is subjected to the used as effectively as possible. This is not just a very appropriate level of consideration in terms of whether simple, “Is there a tick box?” two or three things that or not it is right to be bringing those consultants in, would lead to that evaluation. It is, I think, quite a then obviously there has to be a proper process of more complex issue that has been worked on, as you agreement to that taking place. say, for some time.

Q59 Chair: As far as bonuses are concerned, the Q62 Dr Huppert: It just seems a bit odd. You should Committee has taken a view that nobody associated know what you are going to try to measure before you with immigration, visas, enforcement should be start the thing, otherwise I am sure we can come up getting a bonus until the backlogs are cleared and until with a metric that will make any strategy work. I look you are satisfied that the organisation is not closed, forward to seeing it published. Can I move on to two secretive and defensive. I understand that bonuses other policy decisions that were made recently? I do have been signed off for the Home Office. Have they not want to go through the whole of the drugs policy come to you yet? Do you know what bonuses people because I think we both know where we stand on it. are going to get in your Department? One was just to commend you for the decision you Mrs May: No, the decision about bonuses in the made about foil. I just wanted to register that that was Department is largely one that is taken by the a good, sensible decision. It took a long time but it Permanent Secretary. There are rules across was the right decision in the end. Then to turn to Government in terms of, certainly for the senior civil somewhere I think we will disagree, which was the service, bonuses that can be paid and the percentage decision about khat. of staff. There is a cap on the amount of bonus that Chair: Khat. can be paid for any one Department. Dr Huppert: Sorry, the Chair’s pronunciation is clearly better than mine. Professor David Nutt wrote a Q60 Chair: But are you happy for them to get very amusing article comparing the mispronunciation. bonuses? The letter from the ACMD and the comments were, I Mrs May: I have to say, Chairman, I understand the thought, quite clear, “On the basis of available view that the Committee has had in relation to the evidence, the overwhelming majority of council operation of the immigration system and the bonus members consider khat should not be controlled under issue is one that I think I am right in saying you raised the Misuse of Drugs Act. The ACMD considers that with me at my very first appearance before your the evidence of harm associated with use of khat is Committee and it has been raised on a number of insufficient to justify control and it would be occasions since, as indeed you are today. All I would inappropriate and disproportionate to classify khat say is that when you look at this question, obviously under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”. It goes on to decisions have to be taken in relation to individual say reasons why it should not be controlled, and yet performance, but there is a cap that Government sets your statement says the exact opposite. on what can be done in relation to bonuses in the Mrs May: Yes, and I was clear. I obviously spent senior civil service. some considerable time not just looking at the review Chair: Yes, I think you have also said that every time that the ACMD had done but also talking to the you have appeared before us and we are grateful for chairman of the ACMD about this matter. It is right that explanation of process. that we looked to the ACMD to give us their best Mrs May: I am pleased for your confirmation of my scientific advice on these matters but, of course, as consistency, Chairman. Home Secretary I have to look at this in a wider Chair: You are in everything always consistent, context. I have concerns. We are, I think, the only Home Secretary. Let us move on to drugs and Dr northern European country and only major country in Huppert. Europe not to have banned khat and we have seen cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 11

16 July 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP significant change taking place in terms of potential expert advice. But it is the politicians who make a trafficking of khat through the UK since the decision on this matter and in some circumstances, as Netherlands banned it in January of this year. There I have done in this case, I have decided to ban khat was the potential for the UK to become a smuggling because of a number of other issues that I think should hub for khat. I did not think that was right and it is be taken into account. You said that we spent some on those wider context issues that I thought it was time considering the foil issue. We did spend some appropriate to ban khat. It is also the case that the time. I had a number of discussions with the chairman ACMD on one or two areas made the point that the of the ACMD in relation to foil and I asked the evidence base was limited in a number of areas and I committee on at least one occasion to look at another think there is a question. There has been significant particular aspect of the use of foil so that I was concern expressed from particular communities about absolutely clear about the evidence base there. But I the use of khat and the social impact that the use of have taken the decision in relation to khat, as I say, khat has. Obviously, I considered that as well. with a wider context than that that was looked at by the ACMD. Q63 Dr Huppert: The report does look at these things. It says there is no evidence of a connection Q65 Dr Huppert: Lastly, a factual question: have with gang crime. It talks about no direct causal link you laid the order that would ban khat? to adverse medical effects other than a small number Mrs May: I will have to check on that, I am sorry. of reports about liver toxicity. You are right that there Dr Huppert: If you could let us know when you do. is not a huge problem at the moment. The reports are Mrs May: Yes. quite clear. We make tax from it; it brings in £20 Dr Huppert: Thank you. million a year in tax revenue at the moment. Are you not concerned that by banning something like this we Q66 Chair: Could I declare my interest as someone will generate a gang crime problem, as we see born in Yemen and someone who has actually had associated with other drugs that have been banned, khat, and you may think that that explains a lot about and indeed that if we are going to have any police me. The community does, of course, chew this on a enforcement of it, having extra police enforcement, very regular basis and the only worry is that it will which would effectively only be for one very small, now go underground because they will carry on relatively marginalised community, could significantly chewing it because they like doing it after lunch, so worsen community relations for the police? this may well be a problem for us. Please monitor that. Mrs May: What I would say to you, Dr Huppert, is Mrs May: With extreme efficiency, I have just been this, and I apologise if it is partly repeating what I passed a note to say that— have just said. It was important for us and for me to Chair: It has been unbanned. look at a wider set of issues. You talk about the Mrs May: No, there is a draft order. We will be laying potential impact in relation to criminality, but what we the order in the autumn. were already starting to see was the potential for the Chair: On khat? UK, because it was the only country in northern Mrs May: Yes. Europe not to have banned khat, to become effectively Chair: I see. a hub for the smuggling or trafficking, whichever Mrs May: I hesitate to try to pronounce properly. phrase you choose to use, of khat into other countries Chair: As we often do, let us move from khat to like the Netherlands, where they banned it in January. police computers and Lorraine Fullbrook, a small Some of that evidence came forward following the leap. ACMD’s report. Obviously, they looked at their scientific evidence. You are right, they did go slightly Q67 Lorraine Fullbrook: Home Secretary, last July wider than that in the report that they produced. I do I believe you incorporated the excitingly named not have the concerns that you raise in relation to the company, The Police ICT Company Limited, which impact. There are some very striking views that have had a very serious aim, which was to bring together been expressed by particular communities about the some 2,000 or so systems operating in the 43 forces impact of khat within those communities and a with some 4,000 employees operating those systems, concern that it should be banned. It is not the case that none of which would speak to each other, into one there is just one view out there in relation to khat. system. At the time, obviously, the police and crime commissioners had not been elected when the Q64 Dr Huppert: The ACMD is supposed to look at incorporation of the company happened. Has the the social problems as well. That is exactly what the business plan been laid down now for The Police ICT Act says. I suspect we are going to continue to Company Limited? disagree on this— Mrs May: Indeed, there was an original business plan, Mrs May: I suspect so. on the basis of which the company was established. Dr Huppert:—but if there is new evidence that you You are absolutely right, with 43 police forces with say has come up, would you be able to get the ACMD 2,000 IT systems it seemed only sensible to try to to write to say that they have changed their opinion in bring a degree of greater consistency and light of the new evidence? Because I would have interoperability into these systems. The ICT company thought you would want to get their support. has been working with a number of police and crime Mrs May: First of all, I of course work with the commissioners looking in terms of the contracts that ACMD and it is absolutely right that we do so and they are interested in at the moment and is in the Government looks to the ACMD to give us their process of developing some of that work with a small cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Ev 12 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP number of police and crime commissioners at the scrutiny process at local level through the police and moment. Obviously, as you have indicated in your crime panels and there are certain responsibilities that question, it was formed before the PCCs were in they have and they are able, obviously, to— place. It has taken obviously time for the PCCs to be able to get their feet under the table and look at this Q72 Chris Ruane: I think in the case of Gwent the issue. A small number have shown particular interest scrutiny panel was not consulted prior to the decision in this and it is being taken forward with those as to sack the chief constable. Is that right? able to exemplify to others the work that the company Mrs May: We have put in place the ability for the can do. police and crime panel to be scrutinising and certainly in relation to the hiring of individuals they have an Q68 Lorraine Fullbrook: When would you expect ability to have a public hearing or to give advice to the system or the company to be handed over to the the police and crime commissioner. There is an ability police and crime commissioners en masse? if a police and crime commissioner wishes to remove Mrs May: Well, that is a matter we are currently a chief constable—you used the word “sacked”, discussing with both the company as it exists at the although, of course, it is not the case that police and moment and obviously the police and crime crime commissioners have necessarily been sacked in commissioners who are interested in it. I am afraid I the cases that you have referred to. The police and am not able to give you a date at the moment, but I crime commissioner advice is available from the will obviously in due course hope to be able to give HMIC and it is possible for the police and crime panel more information about that process. It is because of to scrutinise decisions that are taken. the process of getting the PCCs in place and in a position where this is an issue they wish to look at Q73 Chris Ruane: Do you think the sacking of two and are able to look at. I am not in a position to say chief constables within six months has enhanced the absolutely a date for you at the moment. power and prestige of PCCs within Parliament and among the public? Q69 Lorraine Fullbrook: In, say, a five-year Mrs May: Well, I think it has certainly alerted the business plan that will be worked on currently with public to the powers that the police and crime those police and crime commissioners who are commissioners have. They have those powers. involved with the company in the interim ownership, Parliament gave them those powers. The Act is very if you like, currently is to have this interoperability clear on this and I think it is right. We wanted the between the 43 forces, excluding the national police and crime commissioners to be the voice of database. The police and crime commissioners will local people in local policing and this is one of the take ownership of that completely? powers that they have. As I say, you have used the Mrs May: Yes, that is the intention. word “sacking” in your description. A number of decisions have been taken, a number of conversations Q70 Lorraine Fullbrook: They will own it entirely have been held, and there have been changes in a 100%? number of chief constables. Mrs May: Well, that has been the intention. The question is it may be the case that some systems that Q74 Chris Ruane: The turnout for the PCC elections are of interest to the Home Office may be part of what in November was I think only around 15%. It was we have involved in the ICT company. warned by people in all parties that there may be a Interoperability is obviously one of the issues of low turnout because there was no funding available concern in relation to looking at the work of the ICT for a mail-out. The elections were held in deepest company, but also it is just generally to ensure that we darkest November when it gets dark at 4 o’clock in bring a greater degree of cost effectiveness to the use the afternoon. The fact that the turnout was so low, do of ICT and the use of ICT contracts. I believe there is you think there is a case for bringing the elections one company that has 1,500 contracts with police forward or later to, say, May when most elections are forces. This cannot be sensible in terms of cost held? Do you think there is a case for public funding effectiveness for police forces. to advertise the fact that these important elections are going on? Q71 Chris Ruane: On the issue of PCCs, we have Mrs May: As from the next set of elections they will had the sacking of two chief constables within the past revert to May, so they will be held in May rather than six months by PCCs. Do you think there is enough in November. It was just the first election, a regulation around the PCCs to take such big steps, standalone election, held in November. We did take a especially early on in the appointment or the election decision to operate on a different basis from general of these PCCs? David Jones, the Secretary of State elections in relation to literature that was available, for Wales, said at Welsh questions that there is making it available through a website. There was a parliamentary scrutiny, the parliamentary scrutiny of telephone line that enabled people to request a hard our Select Committee. Is that enough parliamentary copy if they preferred hard copy literature about the scrutiny? Do you think big decisions like that should police and crime commissioners. This was the first come before yourself? election for these individuals and as time goes on, as Mrs May: I think it is absolutely right that we put in people see their PCCs, as they see the actions that place the ability for the PCCs to be able to make a they are taking as their PCCs are around and about in decision about the hiring and firing of chief local communities, I think people next time round will constables. Of course, we have put around that a understand rather better. The Home Office did cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 13

16 July 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP advertising about the PCC elections and what the role published locally because it is local people who will of the PCC was, but I think next time round people be making the determination on it. It is local people will recognise more clearly what the role of the PCC who will decide whether they think the PCC, if they is. I am sure that the turnout will be higher at the next choose to stand again, has done a good job, whether set of PCC elections. they have spent their money wisely, whether they have delivered for them locally. It is not going to be for us Q75 Chris Ruane: What would you estimate the nationally to say that. It is the whole point of PCCs. turnout to be at the next election? It is for the local electorate to decide. Mrs May: Well, I never predict election results and I Chair: I am not sure whether Mr Clappison wants to don’t think it is a very good idea to try to predict ask a question. He is looking at me. turnout at elections. Mr Clappison: I am just tempted to observe that we had a distinguished former member of this Committee Q76 Chris Ruane: Higher or lower? who was I think a Labour spokesman and a Labour Mrs May: I have just said I think it will be higher. Minister on Home Affairs who would not strictly have Chris Ruane: You do? a background in policing but certainly had an interest Mrs May: Yes. in it. Chris Ruane: Considerably higher? Chair: Indeed. Mrs May: Higher. Mr Clappison: The Committee was aware he had a very conscientious interest in it. Q77 Chris Ruane: All right. Will the power of the PCCs to remove their chief constables have an effect? Q80 Chair: Before we go into all our yesterdays, As I say, two sacked in six months; will this have an have you met Sir Hugh Orde? He was very keen to effect on the future candidates for chief constable? meet you to discuss PCCs. Has this happened or is Will they be more wary about going for this position your private office fixing it? when they can be sacked at the drop of a hat by Mrs May: It is being fixed up. Unfortunately, we had somebody who has no experience of policing issues? a meeting in the diary that had to be postponed. I Will it affect the calibre of chief constable coming think from memory it was because of parliamentary forward? commitments that came up, but we are rescheduling Mrs May: Obviously, the police and crime that. commissioners have been drawn from a diverse range of backgrounds. As you will know, there are some Q81 Chair: We are coming to the end now, just two police and crime commissioners who do, indeed, have quick issues of policy. First of all, at the Home Office a policing background and have had experience somebody briefed The Sunday Times that there was because they have been police officers themselves. It going to be a bond scheme introduced for immigration is wrong to say that every PCC does not have a cases. You talked about this in the House yesterday. policing background. There are some PCCs— Six countries came up: India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Chris Ruane: I did not say that. Bangladesh, Ghana and Nigeria. You told the House Mrs May: You described PCCs as not having a yesterday that there would be a pilot. We understand policing background but some of them do. Some of them have a background of involvement with policing that you have not worked out the details, but I have because they have been on police authorities in the written to a number of these presidents and prime past. Obviously, some have not had that background. ministers and I have received two replies so far. The I think that it is right that we have that diversity of President of Ghana through his High Commissioner background. I don’t think what has been happening says, “This is unacceptable and, indeed, inappropriate. will discourage people from going forward to be However, requesting the payment of the bond prior to chief constables. entry into the United Kingdom is not very effective. You are, in effect, telling the applicants that upon Q78 Chris Ruane: Will it encourage them? deposit of the bond they have paid they can get lost Mrs May: I think that we will see people make in the UK. After all, they would have paid for the individual decisions about how they wish their careers privilege”. The President of Nigeria through his High to progress and there will be those out there who still Commissioner says that they have not been either wish to be chief constables who will put their names informed or consulted on this, “We view this as forward. We have some very good new chief discriminatory and targeted at only non-white constables. There is always a regular turnover of chief members of the Commonwealth”. Now, these are constables and we have some very good new chief initial reactions; I have not received responses from constables in place. others. Are you going to talk to these countries before you introduce the bonds? Are you going to explain to Q79 Chris Ruane: Finally, do you think all PCCs them why it is being done? Because I was the Minister have now declared publicly their interests and is there for entry clearance many years ago and the last a case for a national register of PCCs’ interests? Labour Government tried to do this unsuccessfully Mrs May: I believe that it is right that we have because entry clearance officers were telling us that it required PCCs to publish certain information about was very, very difficult to administer. You are right to their own pecuniary interests and about contracts that introduce a pilot. I am not saying you are right to they are entering into as PCCs and expenses and so introduce bonds, but starting with a pilot is probably forth. I think that it is right that that information is a good idea rather than a blanket for a series of cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Ev 14 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP countries. How long do you think it will be before Mrs May: I am not able to give you a date, Chairman, you have worked out the details of the pilot? but I hope that it will be very shortly. Mrs May: Well, I would certainly hope to be able to Chair: Right, because I was told that it might be bring forward the proposals for the pilot later this before we rise, which is Thursday. Well, if it is year. I would expect it to be a fairly limited pilot. Thursday, please let us know. What we need to be able to do is to have a pilot that Sorry, Michael Ellis has a final question and then we is going to give us the evidence as to whether or not will close. this is a scheme that is going to work in the future and part of that will be issues like what the criteria Q84 Michael Ellis: You have answered questions, are for selecting how this is going to be operated, how Home Secretary, for a couple of hours now. Could I much the bond would be. I think the question arose just ask you this? Until relatively recently, there was yesterday in the House in oral PQs it would need to a convention that Home Secretaries attended royal be sufficient to ensure that it had the impact that it births. I understand this happened with Her Majesty was intended to have but obviously not the Queen. Do you have any plans to visit the Lindo disproportionate. All of those issues need to be looked Wing any time soon following this convention? at and I obviously will come forward with the Chair: I think Mr Ellis would like to accompany you. proposals in due course, but I would expect to be able Michael Ellis: I am being mischievous. to do that before the end of this year, so some time in Mrs May: I was tempted to say, Chairman, that in fact the autumn. it is no longer the case that the Home Secretary is required to attend a royal birth, but I suspect, Mr Ellis, Q82 Chair: That is very helpful and I think that is with your royal connections you might have more the right approach because there are a lot of practical information about these things than I do. difficulties. On alcohol minimum pricing, you told the House on Q85 Chair: Was the reason that you had to give them 23rd March 2012, “We will, therefore, introduce a passports or something? Why did the Home Secretary minimum unit price for alcohol. We will consult over attend a royal birth? the next few months on the level of the minimum Mrs May: It goes back many centuries to the warming price and we will seek to introduce legislation as soon pan issue. The Home Secretary had to be there to as possible”. A lot of “wills” in there, not “maybe” or evidence that it was genuinely a royal birth and that a “perhaps” but “We will do these things.” What has baby had not been smuggled in. happened to that now? Michael Ellis: I think the Queen was the last one, Mrs May: Chairman, as you know, we had a Mr Chairman. consultation and we have been looking at the results Chair: Anyway, order, everyone. We learn something of that consultation, the views that were expressed. I new every time you come to this Committee. anticipate that the Government will be in a position to Mr Winnick: There may be a knighthood around for be able to publish its response effectively through its one or two. alcohol strategy very shortly. Chair: That completes the evidence. Thank you very much, Home Secretary. Q83 Chair: So not before Thursday?

Follow up to 16 July 2013 Home Affairs Select Committee evidence session on “the work of the Home Office”.

Thank you for your letter of 22 July on Abu Qatada costs, asylum seekers’ right to work after 12 months and publication of the Drug Evaluation Strategy.

The Final Cost to the Government of the Abu Qatada Case

Further to my letter to you of 4 June 2013, I am writing to provide updated figures for the additional legal costs falling to HM Government as a result of pursuing Abu Qatada’s case through the courts since 2005. Legal Aid £647,658 HMG legal costs—domestic proceedings £1,008,000 HMG legal costs—Strasbourg £130, 018 Total £1,785,676

The Legal Aid Agency has secured some £220,000 from Abu Qatada’s frozen assets as a contribution to the legal aid costs.

I should also note that the figures set out above are the· latest, but cannot yet be considered the final additional legal costs of the deportation case, since the Legal Aid Agency (who are responsible for Legal Aid) and Treasury Solicitors (who are responsible for collating HM Government’s domestic legal costs) may not yet have received and processed final bills from Abu Qatada’s and HM Government’s legal representatives respectively. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [04-10-2013 09:35] Job: 032866 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/032866/032866_w001_steve_follow up evidence from Home Secretary.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 15

The Government’s policy on allowing asylum seekers to work if they have not had a decision within 12 months As I stated in my evidence on 16 July, it is right that the policy on limiting asylum seekers’ permission to work should be maintained. Reducing the time limit on accessing the labour market from 12 to six months would risk abuse by economic migrants; and it would undermine our policy of prioritising access to employment and business opportunities for those lawfully present in the UK, or who are admitted to the UK under the immigration rules for employment or business. I do not believe that widening the number of asylum applicants eligible for permission to work is justified in the current economic climate. Our policy has been designed to protect the resident labour market and ensure a clear distinction between economic migration and asylum. In my evidence I referred to a court case regarding this policy. On 7 June 2013 the High Court upheld our position in the case of Rostami which found that we are entitled to limit access to the labour market in cases that have waited over 12 months for a decision. This is entirely consistent with our obligations under the UN Refugee Convention and the EU Reception Conditions Directive which sets out the minimum benefits and entitlements afforded to asylum seekers while they await a decision on their claim. It is right that we prioritise access to work for UK and EEA citizens over asylum seekers. It remains our intention to decide asylum cases promptly—78% of adult applicants received an initial decision within six months in 2012–13. Asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute are given support and free, fully furnished and equipped housing while they wait for a decision on their claims. Those who have a genuine protection need are granted refugee status and have unlimited access to the labour market.

The ongoing work in evaluating the Government’s drug strategy and when that evaluation framework might be published The Drug Strategy Evaluation Framework will be published alongside the second Drug Strategy Annual Review shortly. The Framework provides an overview of the approach to evaluating the Strategy including the approach to assessing costs and benefits; it does not contain any results or findings. The evaluation itself will assess progress in achieving the two overarching aims of the Strategy, to “Reduce illicit and other harmful drug use” and to “Increase the numbers recovering from their dependence”, using existing data. However, the evaluation is not just about measuring against a set of metrics. In line with the recommendation by the National Audit Office (NAO) and Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the main focus of the evaluation is to assess the value for money of government spend on tackling drug use. The evaluation will not be completed until the Strategy has run its course. In the meantime work to support the evaluation has been ongoing, including, work to assess the costs and benefits of the different components of the strategy and new research projects such as the independent evaluation of the Payment by Results (PbR) drug and alcohol recovery pilots. 3 September 2013

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 10/2013 032866 19585 Distributed by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:

Online www.tsoshop.co.uk

Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mail TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN General enquiries 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 Email: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701

The Houses of Parliament Shop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square London SW1A 2JX Telephone orders: 020 7219 3890/General enquiries: 020 7219 3890 Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.shop.parliament.uk TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2013 PEFC/16-33-622 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/