House of Commons Home Affairs Committee

The work of the Home Secretary

Oral evidence

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Home Secretary

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

HC 235-iii Published on 28 January 2014 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 Home Office and its associated public bodies.

Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Ian Austin MP (Labour, Dudley North) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Yasmin Qureshi MP (Labour, Bolton South East) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North)

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

Rt Hon Alun Michael (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Karl Turner MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Chris Ruane MP (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

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), Duma Langton (Committee Specialist), Eleanor Scarnell (Committee Specialist), Andy Boyd (Senior 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 2049; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].

List of witnesses

Monday 16 December 2013 Page

Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Home Secretary Ev 33

Related oral evidence 2013-14

The work of the Home Secretary, 16 July 2013, HC 235-i [Ev 1-15]

The work of the Home Secretary, 15 October 2013, HC 235-ii [Ev 16-32]

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 33

Monday 16 December 2013

Members present: Keith Vaz (Chair)

Ian Austin Dr Julian Huppert Michael Ellis Mark Reckless Paul Flynn Mr David Winnick ______

Examination of Witness

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

Q172 Chair: I call the Committee to order and While not criticising in any way the way in which the welcome the Home Secretary. This is part of the ISC does its job, the ISC members are nominated by Select Committee’s normal examination of the Home the Prime Minister. The members of the Committee Secretary. Today we are concentrating in particular on are not elected by Parliament. The names go before counter-terrorism as part of our counter-terrorism Parliament for approval. They do not run for election, inquiries, but there are other issues, of course, that we in the same way as other parliamentary Committees will raise with her. Could I ask all Members present have a session where people put their names forward to declare any other interests other than what is in the and get elected. Of course, they brief the ISC and we Register of Members’ Interests? Thank you. have heard that the ISC obviously brief them about Home Secretary, could I start on counter-terrorism the questions that are being given. Given that they are with the concerns of this Committee? We wrote to appointed by the Prime Minister and that the Prime Andrew Parker and I have also written to Kim Minister also appoints the heads of the security Darroch over a long-standing invitation for Kim services, do you not feel that there should be better Darroch to come and explain what the National transparency in respect of the way in which these Security Council was doing. You wrote back and said matters operate? that you did not want Andrew Parker to appear before Mrs May: The issue of transparency was indeed this Committee. Could you explain why? addressed by the new arrangements that were Mrs May: Yes, Chairman. There is a structure, which established in the Justice and Security Act. Obviously, is being established in parliamentary terms, that prior to those new arrangements it was not the case enables the proper oversight by Parliament of the that the intelligence heads gave evidence in public to security and intelligence agencies. That is the the ISC. That has happened for the first time. That Intelligence and Security Committee, and that took place a matter of a few weeks ago. As I say, that Committee takes evidence from the Director General is the first time that that has taken place, but the ISC of MI5, as it does indeed from the heads of the other structure is the one that has been deemed the security and intelligence agencies. As you will be appropriate one. For obvious reasons in terms of those aware, following the Justice and Security Act that this matters that it is necessary to discuss in secret, the Government passed, those individuals now give ISC is the appropriate structure for the security and evidence in public session to that Committee. That is intelligence agency heads to give their comments, to an enhancement of the oversight that has taken place be questioned and to be challenged on behalf of and it is on that basis that I think it is appropriate, Parliament. given that that is the structure for Parliament to oversee those agencies, it is in that format that the Q174 Chair: One of the problems is they made a Director General should give evidence, rather than to number of assertions before the ISC that are highly this Committee. relevant to what we are doing and if we do not hear from them, but only hear from you and you cannot Q173 Chair: The Committee is unanimous on the give us anything more than you would normally give view—there are no divisions between the parties— us as Home Secretary, then some of those questions that if we are conducting an inquiry into counter- and some of the statements that they have raised terrorism and we have heard a number of very serious cannot be answered. I am going to give you an points made by the editor of The Guardian in example. It was Mr Parker who told the ISC about particular that we felt more appropriately put to Mr what The Guardian has done, “It is the gift that they Parker, we really ought to be examining Mr Parker. I need to evade us and strike us at will.” At the last have had a look at the Act that set up the new hearing, we asked you whether you agreed with that arrangements and the debates that surrounded the assessment and you said, “I do indeed agree with it. arrangements, and nowhere in any of the debates has It is a very clear statement.” anyone said that, because there is an obligation to Do you have any evidence to support what Mr Parker appear before the Intelligence and Security has said? Select Committees are about gathering Committee, Mr Parker or anyone else should not evidence. Have you seen evidence? To use that as an appear before Home Affairs. Obviously, we scrutinise example, he makes a statement and no one doubts the the work of the Home Office. You are the Home fact that he is able to make the statement. He has made Secretary. You are ultimately responsible for the the statement. No evidence was put before the ISC to decisions that are taken. justify that statement, or indeed the statement made cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Ev 34 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP by Sir John Sawers that our enemies are rubbing their evidence that means that they know that our enemies hands with glee. These statements are made, but no are rubbing their hands with glee. Have you seen such evidence is put forward. Do you have any evidence evidence or not? We are all appalled by everything, today to support the views put forward by those two on one side or the other, depending on which side we gentlemen? are on. We are either appalled that it has been released Mrs May: Chairman, I might refer you to the evidence or appalled that it has not been released. Being that I gave in my last appearance before this appalled is not evidence. Have you seen evidence? Committee, when I was challenged by Mr Ellis on this Mrs May: I have obviously been in discussion with issue and he referred to the speech that the Director the agency for which I am responsible and I have been General of MI5 had given. In that speech the Director talking to them about the impact that the information General said, “It causes enormous damage to make that has been published has on the operations of those public the reach and limits of GCHQ techniques. Such agencies responsible for national security and, on the information hands the advantage to the terrorists.” I basis of that, I am clear in my own mind that it is would have thought it would have been—“obvious” the case that, as the Director General of MI5 said, is perhaps the wrong word to use, but if something is information that talks about the reach and limit of published that is based on leaked information, which techniques that are used is indeed damaging. gives any information about how certain operations— Chair: Right. You have had discussions, but you have how security operations—are undertaken or, in the not had evidence. You have had discussions. case of GCHQ, techniques that are used, that which Mrs May: Chairman, I think we are about to dance normally is secret, that, by definition, would, of on the head of a pin on this particular issue. course, give information away to those who might Chair: No, we are not. benefit from having that information. Mrs May: We are. I have said to you— Chair: It may be obvious to you, Home Secretary, Chair: I am not dancing. You may be dancing, but I but, I am sorry, if somebody like Mr Parker and Sir am not. John Sawers comes along and makes statements of Mrs May: I have been— this kind we want to see the evidence. These are not Chair: You have had discussions. bland statements. These are highly emotional Mrs May: I look forward to seeing you on Strictly at statements that enemies are sitting around the world any occasion, Chairman, but I have obviously been rubbing their hands with glee because of what The talking to, particularly, the agency that comes under Guardian has said. Have you seen any evidence? the remit of the Home Office, namely MI5, about the Mrs May: I believe, I am aware— leaked information that has been obtained by Mr Chair: No. Have you seen any evidence? Snowden and the impact that has. I am saying to you Mrs May: Chairman, by definition, the sort of on the basis of what I have seen and heard I am firmly information that you are looking for is information of the view that it is the case that this is damaging to that is normally held secret. national security. Chair: Of course. Chair: Right, and that our enemies are rubbing their Mrs May: That is information that it is possible for hands with glee? the ISC to challenge the agency heads on in the secret Mrs May: I do not tend to use phrases like that, I have programmes that they have in terms of the to say, Chairman. appearances that those individuals have in front of the Chair: No, exactly. ISC. That is the point about being able to give Mrs May: But I believe it is damaging to national evidence to the ISC. What you are saying is, will I sit security. here and talk about things that otherwise might be the Chair: That is exactly why we needed to have the sort of information that is normally held secret? heads of the agencies here, so we could have asked Chair: No, I am not saying that. them. We are very happy to see them in private, but Mrs May: The answer is I am afraid I am not going you do not want us to see them at all. to talk to you about that sort of thing. Chair: No, but I am not saying that. Q176 Dr Huppert: We will have to go through the Mrs May: It is my firm view that what has happened transcript, but I was struck that you did not just yes in relation to The Guardian— I am concerned—I am to some of the Chair’s questions, but can I make sure appalled—at the fact that we have a situation where I understand the doctrine that you are trying to leaked information is published, which could put at advance? Your letter talks about concerns about over- risk the lives of men and women who put themselves oversight—the Intelligence and Security Committee— into dangerous situations on behalf of this country. at a time when around the world people are calling for more oversight. The principle has been established Q175 Chair: I am not asking you to go through every that the heads of the agencies can give evidence in bit of technique that is operated by every single spy public, that they can be seen and that they can give all over the country or all over the world. We are not public speeches. All of that seems to be fine. The interested in that. We are talking about parliamentary question is why it is not okay for them to come to a accountability here. You have not seen any evidence? parliamentary Committee like this. We do not want you to discuss that evidence and we Is this a general principle, that we should have silos— are happy to accept your assurance if you come before that this Committee should only look at things that are us as a Minister of the Crown and tell us you have in the Home Office or that no police officer should seen evidence that supports what Mr Parker and Sir give evidence to other Committees—or does it just John Sawers have said. They have handed you apply to the agencies, that they should not answer cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 35

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP questions with the relevant Committees? It does lead Q179 Mr Winnick: I am sure you are aware of the people to suspect that they are just worried about oral evidence given to us by your ministerial answering questions when the people asking the colleague, Norman Baker. When he appeared before questions have not been pre-approved and the us on 26 November, he was asked about what has questions have not been pre-agreed. It does lead to a appeared in The Guardian. In fact, he was asked by sense of cynicism. What exactly is the doctrine you the Chair, “You do not think that the editor should be are proposing? prosecuted?” Norman Baker replied, “That is a matter Mrs May: What I am proposing, Dr Huppert, is very for the police to decide, whether there is evidence to simple, and I thought I had explained it in response prosecute, but I have personally seen no evidence that to the very first question, which is this. There is a would justify that conclusion.” Is that your view? parliamentary system for oversight of the intelligence Mrs May: I leave decisions about whether and security agencies. That parliamentary system is prosecutions should take place to those whose through the Intelligence and Security Committee. In responsibility it is to make the full and proper the past that has always been behind closed doors; it investigation. By definition, as I am not part of that has always been secret sessions. It is now the case, investigation, I am not party to all the evidence that following changes that have been made, that it is the police may be looking at. It is for them, with the possible for public evidence to be given to that Crown Prosecution Service, to decide whether Committee, but it is that Committee that has the prosecution is appropriate. That is not a decision for responsibility. I would suggest to you that, precisely me to take. It is not a decision for politicians. because that Committee is able to take evidence in Mr Winnick: Yes. I did not really ask that. I asked secret from those organisations and has a long- whether you agreed with your ministerial colleague. standing responsibility for them, they are best-placed Mrs May: I thought I had, by implication, answered to know and to be able to challenge those agencies, that question by saying that my view is that this is a which they do. matter for the operational independence of the police. It is for them to investigate. It is then for them to Q177 Dr Huppert: But similarly, this Committee decide whether they wish to take that to the Crown does scrutiny of policing. That is one of our tasks and Prosecution Service, and the CPS makes a decision we do that quite regularly. We look at what is about prosecution. That is an independent track of happening there. Would you make the same argument activity. I do not take decisions about whether or not that the Transport Committee should not question people should be investigated or prosecuted. It would police officers when it comes in their area? Counter- be entirely wrong for me to do so. terrorism is something that we are responsible for scrutinising. While I would agree the ISC has a Q180 Mr Winnick: That is not in doubt. My particular role in that, counter-terrorism—and MI5 in question was somewhat different, but you have particular has a role with counter-terrorism—is very answered in your own way. It could have been some much the role of this body. other paper—it so happens it is The Guardian—but Mrs May: The reason why you have the Home do you accept that what has been published so far has Secretary in front of you is the Home Secretary is led to a wide-ranging debate, certainly in Britain, the responsible for the Home Office, for which you have United States and elsewhere, about the extent of responsibility of scrutinising, and the counter- information gathering by the security agencies, terrorism work that is done within the Home Office. including the ones in the United Kingdom? My Chair: We may well need to have you more often as question is, do you accept there has been such a a result of what you have just said. debate arising from what The Guardian has published? Q178 Mr Winnick: I wonder if I could ask you one Mrs May: Obviously, there has been a debate or two questions relating to the information—details following what has been published by The Guardian, of Snowden—that has appeared in The Guardian.We but I would point out that that was not a debate that understand from the Metropolitan Police in evidence was lacking before The Guardian made its that has been given to us, Home Secretary, that they publications. Indeed, I have been challenged here on are in the process of seeing whether any law has been this issue by you, Mr Winnick—of national security broken. Are you aware of the ongoing investigation, versus privacy in relation to the Communications Data though obviously it is a matter for the police and Bill the Government had previously brought forward. public prosecutions? Secondly, is the Attorney That whole question of where the balance between involved? security and privacy lies is a debate that has been Mrs May: First of all, in relation to the investigation, ongoing here in the United Kingdom. I have always precisely as you yourself have said, Mr Winnick, I am been clear that without security you cannot enjoy not party to that investigation. That is being your privacy. undertaken by the police. They have operational independence and it is up to them to conduct that Q181 Mr Winnick: Yes. Snowden did not decide to investigation. reveal his information to me for reasons that he will Mr Winnick: And the Attorney? no doubt explain at some stage, but surely the amount Mrs May: That is a question to which I am not aware. of intelligence gathering and surveillance and the rest I would not necessarily expect to be involved if the of it must have come as a surprise to many people, if Attorney was involved. It is up to the police to decide not you, and hence the debate is of a somewhat how they conduct this investigation. different character than before Snowden. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Ev 36 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP

Mrs May: As I said, obviously a debate has followed and he is not a public servant, yet the Director General what has appeared in The Guardian, but it is not of MI5 is a very well paid public servant. I suspect something completely new. It is a debate that has been he is one of those officials paid more than the Prime entered into on a number of occasions. I cited the most Minister. He does not come to this Committee, but he recent occasion in relation to the Government’s makes public speeches before the Royal United proposals on a certain piece of legislation. This is a Services Institute and there are briefings to journalists debate that was held under the last Government in prior to and post that sort of speech. He also feels able terms of security versus privacy in a number of areas. to make melodramatic sound bites like “a gift to evade It is ongoing and it is right that, in a democracy, we us” and his colleagues make other sound bites to put should have an ongoing debate about these issues so across their points in the Intelligence and Security that we make sure we always get that balance right. Committee. Do you not think it would be appropriate in all of those circumstances for such a senior public Q182 Mr Winnick: In that wide-ranging debate servant to come to this Committee and follow up those would you accept there is concern, which perhaps you sorts of statement with evidence before this do not share, that the editor of a newspaper has the Committee? possibility of a prosecution hanging over him for Mrs May: Mr Ellis, I am afraid I will probably publishing matters that many people consider to be in disappoint you because I will give the answer that, in the public interest? fact, I have given to others who have asked me on Mrs May: That is certainly an argument that is put by this, which is that I think that we have a parliamentary some. The alternative argument that indeed indicates structure for the parliamentary oversight of the that publication may affect issues that relate to security and intelligence agency heads. That is the national security has also been put. That is why it is Intelligence and Security Committee and I think it is important that any decisions on this are properly taken right that it is that Committee that challenges and following investigation by the police and by the holds those individuals to account. As I said, it is now Crown Prosecution Service as an entirely independent the case that they have started taking public evidence track of decision-taking. sessions from those individuals. That did not used to be the case. That is a move that has been taken under Q183 Chair: It is reported in The Guardian today this Government, and obviously we have also taken that NSA officials are considering an amnesty for Mr steps in the Justice and Security Act to enhance the Snowden. Would you favour that because it would role of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and mean the return of the files that he presumably still I think it remains right that it is that body before has? which Mr Parker appears. Mrs May: First of all, you are making an assumption about what that might mean. Any decision by the Q185 Michael Ellis: Can I put this to you then, NSA as to how they wish to— please, Home Secretary? I put it to Mr Rusbridger, Chair: No, I am not making an assumption. I am just when he came before this Committee, that he had repeating what is in the national media, so I am not been, and his newspaper, irresponsible in what they making any assumptions. had done with the Snowden-leaked papers and that Mrs May: I apologise, Chairman. I thought you had lives had been endangered, but is it not correct that made an assumption about the return of material in there is some irresponsibility on the part of the relation to the suggestion of an amnesty, but any security services as well, including MI5, in that all of decision as to whether the American authorities wish this data that has been stolen and leaked from the NSA to undertake an amnesty for Mr Snowden is entirely had been in one place, capable of being viewed by a a matter for them. large number of people and capable of being Chair: Would you expect to be consulted, given the downloaded in one mass of material by a relatively role that we have played as a Government in junior person? It is not only fair to put to you, in the supporting what the Americans have done? As Home absence of the MI5 chief, that there has been some Secretary, would you expect someone to ring you up irresponsibility from that quarter as well? and talk to you about it or would you think that Mrs May: I would not describe it as such, but Washington would make the decision on their own? obviously how data was stored by the NSA was a Mrs May: Obviously, the United Kingdom had matter that was for the NSA. Obviously, they will interests in relation to this. Those have been made have been looking very carefully at the arrangements absolutely clear, but this was an individual who was that they had internally that enabled this to take place. working for a contractor that was contracted to the Michael Ellis: And hopefully reviewing those National Security Agency in the United States, and, arrangements? of course, they will be looking and making a decision Mrs May: I would expect those arrangements to have as to what action they wish to take. been reviewed. Chair: You do not mind if you are not consulted? Mrs May: The decision as to what action will be taken Q186 Michael Ellis: Mr Rusbridger also pointed out will be one that will be taken by the NSA and the to this Committee that there were various figures who American authorities. had told him and his newspaper that they had Chair: Alone? Yes, I see. Very helpful. performed a public service—I believe Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post is on the record as having said Q184 Michael Ellis: Home Secretary, Alan The Guardian has performed a public service—and Rusbridger of The Guardian came to this Committee only 1% of the material that he has has been released. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 37

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP

I suspect The Guardian would be arguing that they taken at the time. That is why I said, in response to are being responsible with this information. Do you the Chairman, this was information that was being accept Mr Rusbridger’s contention in that regard? taken when somebody was being employed under Mrs May: No. I have already described, as I did at contract by the NSA, rather than by the security and my last appearance, why I think it is the case that I intelligence agencies here, but I would expect there to share the view that was taken by the Director General be conversations and discussions about the impact that of MI5 in relation to the potentially damaging effect the revelations have had or the information being of anything that reveals information about the taken has had on the intelligence agencies here. techniques that are used by GCHQ. I do not consider such activity to be responsible. It is perfectly possible Q190 Mark Reckless: You were talking about to have a debate about the balance between security parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence agencies, and privacy without publishing information that but is it not security by the Executive of itself, given comes from leaked documents. the members of the Committee are appointed by the Prime Minister? Q187 Michael Ellis: Can I ask you about the D- Mrs May: No. As you know, we have made some notice committee, which is the very long-established slight changes to the way in which membership of the committee that is for senior journalists and editors to ISC will be determined in the future, but I can assure ascertain the appropriateness or legality of reporting you, as somebody who also appears before the ISC on information? We understand from The Guardian that those matters that it is not possible for this Committee they did make phone calls—in all but one case before to question me on, that they are certainly people who going on to publish their information—to the D-notice challenge and take their role extremely seriously. secretary and they do not appear to have been blocked Mark Reckless: But if you were unhappy about the or obstructed in pursuing their stories. I am trying to degree of challenge could you not go to the Prime be fair here, Home Secretary. Does that not mean they Minister and suggest that perhaps MP A could be have jumped through their hoops and either they have replaced with MP B? done all that they needed to do or there is something Mrs May: As I say, the arrangement will be slightly wrong with the D-notice side of things and they different in future in relation to the membership of should have been blocked and were not? the Intelligence and Security Committee. I think it is Mrs May: What I would say to you, Mr Ellis, is this. appropriate that it is senior Members not just of the Of course, there were discussions between House of Commons, but also of the House of Lords, representatives of the Government and The Guardian and on a cross-party basis and including Cross- that led to the destruction of material that was held by Bench Members. The Guardian. This was an issue not just of publication. It was an issue about the security or Q191 Mark Reckless: Should those Members not be otherwise of how information was being held and elected? Potentially subject to vetting, but would whether information was being communicated election not be better than appointment, ultimately? between various bodies. It was on the basis of concern Mrs May: I think the arrangement that we have is about the material that was held and the lack of perfectly satisfactory is relation to membership, security around it that The Guardian agreed that the ensuring that there are senior Members of the Government could go in and destroy the material that Parliament who are on that committee. I see Dr was held. Huppert is shaking his head as I speak, but, as I say to you, that is a Committee that takes its work extremely Q188 Mark Reckless: Home Secretary, you say the seriously. It deals with matters that it is not possible security of the information they have is a matter for to discuss in public, but it is certainly a body that is the NSA, but is it not also a matter for us, given the challenging to those who appear before it. amount of information on GCHQ staff and methods that seems to have been included? Q192 Mark Reckless: With members being Mrs May: I would expect that there have been appointed by the Executive and submitting their discussions between agencies here in the UK and the questions in advance, is there not the danger that we NSA in relation to the way in which material was give the appearance of parliamentary scrutiny of the being held. Executive in these areas without the reality? Mrs May: We do have parliamentary scrutiny of the Q189 Mark Reckless: The matter of whether security and intelligence agencies through the ISC, Edward Snowden might receive an amnesty or similar, and I think that that is appropriate and has been potentially for greater security or return of information appropriate. We have made some changes to the body, he has, is that not also a matter for the UK? Perhaps to its powers and to its ability to take evidence in it might not be to you as Home Secretary, but surely public, and I think that is the appropriate way forward. somewhere in the British Government we would Chair: Home Secretary, before I bring in Mr Flynn, expect to be consulted by the US authorities before a let us be clear we are not criticising, on this decision was taken on that. Committee, either the work load or the effectiveness Mrs May: There will be a difference about having a of our colleagues on the ISC. I am sure they do a discussion about the impact of the revelation of the terrific job. We do not know what they do to you in material, which I would expect to be part of the private because we never watch them question you in consideration, and the decision being taken by a body private. We do not know what you say to them in that is the body from which the information was being private. However, the concern unanimously expressed cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Ev 38 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP by this Committee—and certainly it has changed, I been held. I would expect such evidence sessions to have to tell you, since my letter to Mr Parker and develop over time. your response saying he could not appear—is that we cannot do our job effectively in scrutinising you and Q194 Paul Flynn: Now the principle has been the Home Office, which is part of our remit, if we get accepted that the heads of security can appear in second-hand information. I am afraid what you have public, is it not absolutely right that they should now given us so far today is only second-hand information. appear before a Committee like ourselves, who would The problem that we have is that Mr Parker and Sir certainly not give them advance notice of questions John are making statements in open session and and not accept their non-answers as ones that can go nobody knows what the follow up is. Unless we call unchallenged? Sir Malcolm Rifkind to give evidence, which would Mrs May: What I would say to you, Mr Flynn, is the be rather incestuous—calling other Members of following. As I have said in answer to other Members Parliament to give evidence to another Committee of of this Committee, there is a structure within Parliament to find out what goes on—there is no way Parliament for that oversight to take place of the we can give a balanced and fair report on counter- agencies. That is the ISC. terrorism and on structures, unless we have this before Paul Flynn: You have said this at least four times. us. We are also left in a position where Mr Rusbridger Mrs May: Yes, because that is my view and it remains comes before us and says 10 of the biggest my view. newspapers in the world have published this Paul Flynn: We understand that view. There is no information because parliamentary scrutiny is flawed. point in repeating it. It is not a view with which That is the point we are trying to make. perhaps some of us would agree. The scrutiny that has We are not trying to say that anything our taken place has not been adequate and has not helped distinguished colleagues on the ISC do is not done as Parliament. How are we, as Back-Bench effectively as us. They may well do it better than us, parliamentarians, helped by the scrutiny that takes but, as Mr Reckless and others have said, the Prime Minister appoints, Parliament approves and then the place on this Committee—just one or two examples? people who hear points question other people who Mrs May: The reason I am repeating the view that I hear points; in other words, the head of the security have made earlier is because if I am asked a similar services and the head of GCHQ. It is just very much a question in relation to the appearance of the heads of village story here. Everyone is appointed by the Prime the security and intelligence agencies, particularly the Minister, asking questions of each other and giving Director General of MI5, then I am afraid I have one answer to each other. That is the issue we have. view about that, which I have given and will continue to give. The ISC publishes reports on a number of Q193 Paul Flynn: When has the Intelligence and issues. Members of the ISC contribute to debates in Security Committee provided information— this House. Sir Malcolm and other members of the evidence—that has assisted Parliament in its ISC are assiduous in ensuring that they contribute to surveillance of the Government? debates that take place that are relevant. Mrs May: The Intelligence and Security Committee Paul Flynn: But how does Parliament— obviously does make publications available. Mrs May: We have an annual debate in relation to the Paul Flynn: Can you give any precise examples of work of the ISC and the operation of the ISC at which when they have helped Parliament in our scrutiny of it is possible for points to be made by Members of Government? Are there any? Parliament about that and for the Chairman to be Mrs May: I would have expected that reports that questioned and challenged. That gives opportunities they undertake— for Members of Parliament. Paul Flynn: Take the two biggest decisions taken by Paul Flynn: No, it does not. All our elections are Parliament in the last 10 years, the decision to go to equally valid and those of us who are not on that Iraq and the decision to go into Helmand Province. Committee and would never possibly be on that On both those issues the Intelligence and Security Committee have no way of challenging the security Committee were acting as cheerleaders to authorities. Isn’t this unsatisfactory? If there is going Government. Does this not strengthen the idea that it to be progress and transparency, shouldn’t the heads is a poodle Committee for the Prime Minister? of security come before this Committee and be Mrs May: No, that is not strengthened simply because scrutinised in the traditional manner of this House, not you disagree with views that they gave. treated with poodle questions? Paul Flynn: They were behind those two issues. If Chair: That is very helpful, Mr Flynn. I think the we look at what happened at the only public answer is probably no. Committee that we have seen, where they were asked Mrs May: It is going to be the same, I am afraid. pre-prepared questions. They were given the questions Paul Flynn: It is going to be a repetition. in advance and possibly the replies were rehearsed. Mrs May: I hate to disappoint you, but I am not going Do you think it was demeaning for the traditions of to change suddenly and answer the fifth or sixth parliamentary scrutiny to have a stunt like that, which question. was presumably designed to embarrass The Guardian Chair: Even the Home Affairs Select Committee can rather than to provide public scrutiny? accept the fact that you have not changed your mind Mrs May: No, it was designed to provide public in the last half an hour. Ian Austin on scrutiny and scrutiny. It was the first such evidence session that had then we will go on to CT. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 39

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP

Q195 Ian Austin: Home Secretary, when Alan will have seen that he is being very effective in the Rusbridger came here and I asked him how many of work that he is doing. People will have seen him deal the 58,000 documents had been read by The Guardian with PQs. He has been in front of this Committee. before they had been sent elsewhere he said he did Ian Austin: But is it appropriate to appoint a fantasist not know. What was your reaction when you heard to the Home Office? him admit that information, which included the names Mrs May: Norman Baker is an assiduous, hard- of security personnel, had been sent by The Guardian working Minister who is doing a good job in the around the world? What did you think about that? Home Office and I am happy to work alongside him. Mrs May: I was very concerned about that. Earlier, I Chair: Indeed. used the word “appalled”. I know the Chairman Mr Winnick: Sometimes, Chair, he gives good picked me up on the use of that word, but I am answers. concerned when I hear that information, which Chair: Presumably you have sent him a Christmas potentially has the names of individuals who are card. people who, by definition, are putting themselves into Mrs May: Indeed. I believe I have sent you a positions of potential danger on behalf of this country, Christmas card, Chairman. should be revealed. Q199 Chair: I have not received it. You should have Q196 Ian Austin: What assessment have you made brought it here, or maybe Mr Parker has it. Let us of the extent to which this has placed British security move on. Unfortunately, you come to Christmas, personnel at risk? Home Secretary, having lost two of your TPIMs. Mrs May: I remain of the view, as I indicated in my Ibrahim Magag is still missing after a year. You raised last evidence session, that the leakage of this restrictions on Boxing Day last year. No one can find information and the revelation of this information him. Earlier this year, Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed through publication is damaging to national security. donned a burka and left a mosque in Ealing and we I am particularly concerned when it does potentially relate to individuals and there is information that do not know where he is. Who do we blame for this? potentially relates to particular individuals who are Obviously you are not to blame. We do not expect employed by this country to work on behalf of this you to be following TPIMs people around all over the country to maintain our national security. They are country because you have a lot of other important putting themselves potentially in danger and it seems work to do, but somebody must be responsible for to me there is a duty of care that is owed to them. this. Who is responsible for the fact that under TPIMs we still have two people missing? Q197 Ian Austin: It seems to me the point you have Mrs May: Indeed, under control orders we have a made this afternoon is that you think there is a number of people who absconded and were not found. difference between reporting on the fact that Chair: Yes, indeed. I accept that. surveillance is taking place or reporting the extent of Mrs May: The answer is, Chairman, that it is not surveillance and reporting the detail of it. The possible, unless somebody is behind bars in jail, to Guardian does not need to print the detail or transmit ensure that somebody is not going to abscond. The the detail to other people in order for it to reveal, if it independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David wants to, that that surveillance is taking place. Anderson, has made the point that the only way to be Mrs May: I think it is perfectly possible to have a absolutely certain is to have somebody behind bars. debate on the arguments, on which people take different views, about where the balance lies between Q200 Chair: We were very interested in the evidence privacy and security without revealing details that given by Charles Farr, one of your director generals, potentially are damaging to that national security. about foreign fighters and our concern that Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed was an example of Q198 Ian Austin: There are many people who someone who went abroad to fight and to get into a thought it extraordinary that somebody could be lot of trouble in what he was doing in Somaliland. For appointed to be a Minister in the Home Office with some unknown reason, which Mr Farr said was an some responsibility for oversight of the security and obligation, he was then brought back to the United intelligence services who believes that it is possible Kingdom, even though this Committee has received in this country for the police, the civil service, the evidence from Birnberg Peirce, acting for him, in Government of the day and the security services to which it is very clear that he wanted to go to mount a huge conspiracy to pervert the course of Somalia—not Somaliland, but Somalia—where his justice by claiming that someone who killed family was. themselves was in fact murdered. Do you share that We could not quite understand, or at least I could not view? understand, why we went to so much trouble to bring Mrs May: I have to say— back people into this country who did not want to Ian Austin: Not the view that it is possible to do all come here and who we then had to make subjects of that, but the view that it is extraordinary that someone TPIMs and spend a vast amount of money on them. who does think that could be made a Minister in your We obviously can’t talk about the Adebolajo trial Department. How did you greet his appointment? because it is going on, but one of the features when it Mrs May: I have to say that I am working very well is over will be our interest in why he was brought with him and I think those who have seen Norman back so helpfully from Kenya to the United Kingdom. Baker operating as the Minister for Crime Prevention When jihadists decide they want to leave Britain to go cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Ev 40 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP and fight in Syria and other countries, why do we then should we wait for them to be deported? You are not bring them back again? telling us that Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed was Mrs May: You have asked a wide-ranging question, deported, are you? Chairman. You started off on one individual, but— Mrs May: I think it might have been a slip of the Chair: Break it down. Answer it in bits, if you like. tongue from you, if I may respectfully suggest, Mrs May: The answer is that, on a case-by-case basis, Chairman. You talked about freedom fighters. The there may be circumstances in which it is because the term we use is foreign fighters. individual is a mono-British national. It is not possible Chair: Sorry, foreign fighters. Well, it is their freedom for those who are deporting that individual to deport they are fighting. They seek freedom in Syria. We do them elsewhere other than to the country of their not necessarily agree with them. nationality. As I understand it, in the first case that Mrs May: There are people who will choose to go you quoted the individual is a British national— and fight in Syria from the UK and not just from the Chair: Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed. UK, from other countries in Europe and around the Mrs May: And therefore that was the case. As Charles rest of the world, and who will then choose to return Farr indicated in his letter when he gave written to their country origin where they have nationality. evidence to you, section 1.1 of the Immigration Act Obviously, there are a number of options that can be 1971 exempts from immigration control persons who taken in certain circumstances in relation to the have the right of abode. There is no legal basis for deprivation of citizenship. There is a particular legal preventing British citizens like Mohamed from structure for that at the moment. In some cases, there returning to the UK and it is not necessary for a are actions that can be taken, but that is not in every foreign Government to request that we take them back case. I am very happy to write to you, Chairman, with when someone is a British citizen. There is a an explanation of the generic situation, about those particular circumstance where an individual will come circumstances in which there is an obligation on the back to the UK. UK to take back somebody who is a UK citizen, and those circumstances in which it is possible to deprive Q201 Chair: Yes, but this seems to be happening an citizenship and so forth. awful lot. We all admire the work you did on Abu Chair: We know what the law is, but we want to Qatada. In fact, you were lavished with praise when know why we facilitate their return. Jonathan Evans he went back—from this Committee and, indeed, the in a speech that he made in 2010 said, “It is only a House. Jordan sought every means to have him not matter of time before we see terrorism on our streets sent back and everyone tried to keep him in this inspired by those who are today fighting alongside Al- country rather than go back to Jordan. In Mohammed Shabaab.” Are we trying to put obstacles in their way Ahmed Mohamed’s case, we asked Charles Farr or are we just saying, “We are the British Government specifically for one piece of evidence that he has not and, if they are British citizens, you are welcome to given us. Could we have the request from Somaliland come back to the UK.”? What is your thinking as that he be returned to the United Kingdom? Charles Home Secretary on this? Farr talked about obligations as if we should rush out Mrs May: My thinking as Home Secretary, Chairman, there, hand them their travelling documents and is that I look at decisions on the basis of what I believe British passports and welcome them back at Heathrow is right in the interests of national security, but I have airport. In Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed’s case, to to do that against the background of the legal use it as an example, he did not want to come back framework against which I am able to operate. What here. He wanted to stay in Somalia. Could you send I am indicating to you, and I am very happy to put us that request that the Somalian Government made this into greater detail, is that there are circumstances that he should come back here? Mr Farr promised it where it is not possible for the Government of the to us, but it has not arrived. United Kingdom to deprive somebody of their Mrs May: I will look again at exactly what it was that citizenship and therefore ensure that they are not able Charles Farr indicated he would give to the to return back to the UK. Committee. I do not think it is normal for Chair: So we will not put obstacles in their way? We Government-to-Government relations to be matters will just accept them back? that are revealed in public or to Committees of this Mrs May: No. Chairman, perhaps I can just repeat House. what I have said. On a case-by-case basis, I look for what is right for national security, but I have to Q202 Chair: This is a public discussion. We all operate against the legal framework in which it is know about Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed. You have possible for me to operate. Therefore, on a case-by- been on television. You have been to the House. case basis, if these cases are brought to me, I will look Everyone knows all his history. There is nothing at whether it is right to take action against an private about Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed now. You individual or whether action cannot be taken such that are looking for him, so we have to find him. This is they return to the UK. the issue for our inquiry. When so-called freedom fighters go to other countries in order to take part in Q203 Chair: I understand that. Thank you for jihad and if they are not successful they are explaining it so clearly, but I asked about Mohammed incarcerated in those countries, be it Kenya, Syria, Ahmed Mohamed as an example. This Committee Afghanistan, Somalia or Somaliland, are we under an would like to see the letter from the Government of obligation to bring them back here just because they Somaliland asking for him to be returned to the United are British citizens or should we wait for a request or Kingdom because there is no evidence to support that, cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 41

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP other than an explanation of how the Nationality Act may be people who go not with any intention of operates, which we had from Mr Farr. We want to fighting, but who may go with humanitarian aims, but know, because this is of interest to us in our inquiry then find themselves caught up in fighting. They may on counter-terrorism, did they ask for him to come not go with an intention of fighting with groups that back? We will treat that letter in confidence, but we are related to al-Qaeda, but find themselves in the want to see the request. It is not a private issue now. fighting alongside people who obviously have a link The evidence of Charles Farr is being disputed by the to al-Qaeda, and they may be individuals who will be solicitors acting for Mr Mohammed Ahmed radicalised while they are there and then return to the Mohamed, so for us to have a proper view on this we UK. This is a matter of concern to us. It is also a need to know the facts. That is all we ask and if you matter of concern to other countries in Europe and could send that to us we would be extremely grateful. elsewhere around the world where exactly the same Mrs May: Chairman, Charles Farr did write to you thing is happening—that individuals are going to following his evidence session with further Syria to fight and then returning. information in relation to this issue and I repeat the Mr Winnick: The British authorities are aware of comment that I have made earlier. It is not normally the danger? the case that Government reveals Government-to- Mrs May: Yes. We are aware of this issue. This is a Government relations. matter that we are concerned about. As I say, it is a Chair: No, I understand that. Some of us have been matter that is not just of concern to us. For example, around for a long time and been Foreign Office the last time I was in Brussels I had a meeting with a Ministers. Of course you do not release every piece number of other member states about this issue, and of information that every foreign leader says to you, indeed the Justice and Home Affairs Council did but we have asked for a piece of evidence to justify discuss this issue because of the overall concerns that what Mr Farr said to this Committee and we would we have. like you to go away and see if there is that evidence or write to us and say, “There is no evidence.” Then Q205 Paul Flynn: Could you tell us what your we will close the matter, but we cannot have it just feelings are about what is likely to happen next year? hanging in the air when the solicitors acting for Do you expect an increase in terrorist threats from the Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed say that he was Afghan Taliban? brought back against his will—and this is evidence Mrs May: I do not normally take the position of trying given by Charles Farr that he came voluntarily—and to predict where threats are going to come from or to this was because the Somalia Government wanted him indicate the level of the threats that would take place. to be returned. We need to be clear, otherwise Mr Farr Obviously, the troops have been in Afghanistan with will be found to have misled this Committee and that a purpose. Over time, we have seen people who have is not what we want to find. We want the facts. Please, been travelling to a number of parts of the world—we would you go away and have a look at that? have just been discussing a particular part of the Mrs May: Mr Farr has already written following his world, Syria—in relation to those who are fighting and evidence, but I will— who are therefore potentially returning to the UK Chair: Not with the information we asked, Mrs May. having been trained and been involved in battles. Mrs May: What I am saying, Chairman, is it may not Obviously, we look very carefully at the situation that be possible to give you the specific information that will pertain in Afghanistan following the withdrawal you ask— of the troops. Chair: He did not tell us that. Paul Flynn: It is a simple question. We have been Mrs May: But I will go away and I will look at the repeatedly told since 2001 that the main reason why information that you have received and see what it is our troops are risking their lives—losing their lives, possible to give you. many of them—in Afghanistan is to protect the United Chair: Thank you very much. I am very grateful. Kingdom from Taliban terrorist threats here. When our troops return, is it not prudent to prepare for Q204 Mr Winnick: What the Chair has said I am Taliban terrorist threats, presuming that advice was sure is supported by all the Committee—how this right and the reason they were there was correct? individual came back, if it was so, against his will. Is Mrs May: The reason they were there is correct, but there not a danger, Home Secretary, on the wider issue what we have also been doing, of course, while we that those who go abroad to fight jihad or what have have been in Afghanistan is working on the security you may go without the slightest intention of doing arrangements with the army and also with the police any harm in Britain, but could be indoctrinated in Afghanistan to get to a position where it is possible abroad, and when they do return—and I recognise for the security forces in Afghanistan to be able to what you say about the legal obligations to UK provide security within the country. citizens; we all recognise this, there is no doubt about that—they could cause mayhem arising from that Q206 Paul Flynn: What are we doing working with form of indoctrination? other countries where other possible threats might Mrs May: It is a matter of concern to me, and it is a come, such as Pakistan, the Yemen and Somalia, to matter of concern here in the UK and in other enable us to better tackle future threats? countries of the world that, precisely as you say, Mr Mrs May: Obviously, how we are able to work with Winnick, there are those individuals who will go to other countries varies from country to country. fight abroad. Particularly at the moment, Syria is Pakistan is a country that has suffered more from proving somewhere that people are going to. They terrorism than any other country in the world. They cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Ev 42 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP have had several thousand people who have died as a Q210 Chair: Thank you. You may not have known result of terrorist attacks within Pakistan. I myself this. The Prime Minister has just said that Afghanistan have now made three visits to Pakistan to discuss with is now mission accomplished as far as the basic level them a number of matters of mutual interest. Some of of security in that country is concerned. Does this that is about counter-terrorism, but also about other mean that it is going to be less of a priority as far as interests such as counter-narcotics. security or, in answer to what Mr Flynn has said, does As I say, in individual countries we work in different it remain very much on the radar? ways. In Pakistan, one of the projects that we have Mrs May: It will be one of the countries around the been involved in, with others, is trying to enhance world that we continue to look at. Obviously, the their ability to prosecute terrorists within Pakistan. situation has changed and the Prime Minister is Work is being undertaken with prosecutors and others absolutely right to say, as I indicated in my answer to to look at issues around evidence gathering and how Mr Flynn, that part of the work that has been prosecutions can take place, for example. The support undertaken by our troops out there in Afghanistan has we provide will vary according to the circumstances been developing the capacity of the Afghanistan of the country. forces themselves to provide that security and stability within Afghanistan and the work that has been done with, for example, the Afghan National Army, but we Q207 Paul Flynn: The Foreign and Commonwealth have police officers out there working as a European Office has a justice and human rights partnership project to help to develop the capacity of the Afghan programme. How important is this in reducing the police as well. threat to the United Kingdom? Mrs May: I think this is a very important development Q211 Ian Austin: Under the control order regime, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and it seven people absconded. The regime was strengthened is important because there are some countries where, and the relocation power was introduced and then because of their human rights record, it is difficult for none absconded. You then got rid of the relocation us sometimes to work with them. The work that the orders and since then two have absconded. Do you FCO has initiated in these partnerships, which will think that getting rid of the powers for relocation has vary from case to case and country to country, is about weakened the regime and made it easier for people encouraging and building greater understanding on to abscond? human rights issues such that it is possible for us to Mrs May: I think that we have the regime that is right. work with them in a variety of ways. I have been clear that what is available within the regime should be used to its fullest possible extent. It Q208 Paul Flynn: Is it steady as she goes or is there is the case that control orders were increasingly being a case for saying we should increase the investment affected by decisions in the courts. There are a number overseas in the capacity for dealing with terrorists? of relocation decisions under control orders that were Mrs May: I always hesitate, Mr Flynn, when quashed by the courts, for example, but I would somebody talks to me about increasing investment. return to— Obviously, in a world of finite resources, we have to look at how we spread those resources very carefully, Q212 Ian Austin: Just to be accurate on this point, but this is a development that the FCO has taken on in January 2011 when you changed the regime, you board. I think it is an important development and, as did not mention the stuff about the courts at all. What I say, we in the Home Office are also involved in a you said was that the previous regime was excessive number of programmes such as the one I have and unnecessary. You said that the new regime would indicated in Pakistan, which is about capacity building “restore our civil liberties”. We should set aside all in those countries. this nonsense about the courts because that was not what you said at the time. Many of us feel that the decision you took placed a greater importance on the Q209 Paul Flynn: When you are allocating civil liberties of the terrorist suspects than it did on resources, how do you decide where they should go the safety of the public. when we know that the chance of being killed by a Mrs May: No. I am sorry, Mr Austin, but at the time terrorist in Britain is very small and the chance of we did discuss the impact that the courts were having being killed in, say, a road traffic accident is 300 on the regime of control orders. At the time, it was times greater? particularly noticeable in relation to the number of Mrs May: Obviously, I have a particular budget and hours that had previously been referred to as a curfew. the Foreign Office has a budget in these areas and we There had been a number of cases where the courts sometimes look at these issues together. Obviously, had reduced the number of hours for which somebody sometimes I am looking just at the budget that I have was required to be at their home. It was against that in the Home Office, but not just my budget because background that we set the requirements that we did we work to bring in funding from elsewhere—for within the TPIM regime. At the time, that was an issue example, the European Union in relation to some of that was looked at, but I would return to— the projects that we are involved in in building Ian Austin: But at the time you made it all about civil capacity in other countries where it is in the interests liberties, to be fair. not just of the UK, but of other countries. We must Mrs May: Sorry? make judgments on the effectiveness of what we are Ian Austin: At the time, when you announced these doing based against the threat that we see. changes, the main point you were making was about cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 43

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP restoring civil liberties and the criticism of the or sought or whatever, he can come off a control previous regime as having been excessive and order? That is one thing, but just to say en masse, “All unnecessary. of these people will not be subject to any controls Mrs May: One of the first things we did when we after a particular date,” is something very different. come into government was to look across counter- Mrs May: The decision was taken to put that into terrorism legislation, to look at a number of issues the legislation. It was fully debated and discussed in where we thought that it was necessary to make Parliament. The point I would make, as I was making changes. One of those issues, for example, was the about the control orders, was that— period of pre-charge detention, which we reduced. Ian Austin: I know that, but— The previous Government had initially talked about Mrs May: You indicated earlier that there were no 90 days, but it then went to 28 days. We have reduced problems with the courts, or hinted earlier that there to 14. We did look across the board at counter- might not have been problems with the courts. Indeed terrorism legislation. there were, because three of the control orders were If I may make the point that I made earlier to the quashed because the court said they were wrong in Chairman in relation to this question of people who principle. In two cases the court directed the last abscond from TPIMs, and indeed absconded from Government to revoke the orders because they felt control orders, as David Anderson said, the only sure they were no longer necessary. There was the court way to prevent absconding is to lock people up in a taking a decision that it was no longer necessary for high-security prison. Wherever anybody is on one of an order to be in place in relation to an individual. these measures, or indeed on one of the control orders, Ian Austin: To be fair, I was not exonerating the it is possible for somebody to abscond. courts. Ian Austin: Yes, but it is obvious, is it not, that if Chair: Could this be your last question, Mr Austin? they are allowed to be in London, associating in London where the people that they previously Q215 Ian Austin: Yes. I was simply saying that the associated with and got up to all this stuff with are court was not the excuse you had used when you also living, it is bound to be more likely that they are chose to weaken and water down these controls in able to arrange to escape, as has been proved by the fact that two of them did just that? 2011. The question I am trying to ask you is, when you say, “This decision was taken and this was agreed Mrs May: As I say, the only way that you can ensure by Parliament,” what I want to know is—the fact that that somebody does not, in your terms, escape or abscond is to have them locked up in a high-security some of them have absconded, the controls have prison. clearly not worked and they have obviously not been deradicalised—has any of that made you think again as to whether this sunset clause is still appropriate? Q213 Ian Austin: I am not against locking them up Mrs May: You have made a number of assumptions in a high-security prison, but, as a matter of factual there in relation to the individuals concerned who are accuracy, when they were sent to different parts of the currently under the TPIMs. This is a matter that we country, when they were not able to visit the places they had been visiting before and associate with looked at, at the time. We felt that this was the right people they had associated with before, none of them way to go. We indicated that, of course, it is possible absconded. within the legislation, if somebody is involved in The other big difference between the previous regime further activity, for a fresh TPIM to be applied, but and this one is that you have brought in this sunset that it was right that there was only the possibility of clause that means that at the end of January or early extending it for one further year. next year all of these controls will disappear completely. Given that one of them has escaped pretty Q216 Ian Austin: Can I just ask one final factual recently, which shows that whatever work has been question? Two of the people who are on control orders done while they have been on the TPIM to have been remanded in custody during this period. deradicalise them has failed, surely it is sensible now Does the sunset clause still apply to them as it does to look at this again and maintain controls after the to the others or will it be maintained in respect of beginning of next year, when they are going to be them because they have breached the TPIM during lifted. this period? I have not expressed that well, but I think Mrs May: The decision was taken that the TPIMs you know what I mean. would have the possibility of one extension after one Mrs May: I think I understand. If I may, there are two year so that the full time was two years, but it is parts to the question. If somebody is convicted of an nothing new for somebody to come off this sort of offence such that they are serving a custodial order. In relation to the control orders, 43 individuals sentence, then it is possible to temporarily, but not came off control orders because they were revoked by exactly, revoke the TPIM and then put it back on the previous Government, they were quashed by the when they come out so that that period when they are courts or because they absconded and were never in custody does not apply in relation to the period of seen again. time that is calculated for the TPIM. Obviously, the possibility of putting a fresh TPIM on somebody Q214 Ian Austin: Yes, but there is a difference, is relates to definition in the legislation of terrorist there not, in deciding that, because of this individual’s activity. circumstances and the work that has been done to Ian Austin: In relation to these two, will it be deradicalise him or whatever assurance has been given extended? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Ev 44 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP

Mrs May: The issue for somebody who has been movement and what has been said by both the Prime convicted of something is what they were convicted Minister and me in relation to this issue of free of and whether that comes under the definition of movement, which is about saying that we have the terrorism as allowed for in the legislation for a opportunity— further extension. Chair: No, can I stop you there? Dr Huppert: On the CT bit, unlike my colleague Mr Mrs May: It comes directly to the issue of the legality Austin, I think people who have not been convicted or otherwise of— of a crime probably should not be put in high-security Chair: No. This is a Select Committee. The Deputy prisons, or indeed relocated around the country, so I Prime Minister has launched a damning indictment agree with you on that. It is different once they have against your Department and you are the Home been convicted. Although related to counter-terrorism Secretary. You are sitting before the Home Affairs somewhat peripherally— Select Committee. I do not want to know what the Chair: If it is I will not let you— Prime Minister says. I know what the Prime Minister Dr Huppert: Then I will come in later if you prefer. says and we will come to that in a second. What do Chair: Right, okay. Let us move on now to our last you say about what Mr Clegg has said? Is he wrong topic, which is— or right? Mark Reckless: Can I just ask one very quick Mrs May: I was attempting to answer that very question on TPIM? question, Chairman. Chair: Yes, because you asked so nicely, Mr Chair: You have not mentioned his name. That is Reckless. what concerned me. Mrs May: Because I am going to address the issue Q217 Mark Reckless: Home Secretary, you gave a rather than an individual. What I have said separately number of categories of people and why they were in relation to this matter—and, as it happens, it does coming out of TPIMs. Before the control order regime reflect what the Prime Minister has said as well— came in, the previous regime, I think there were 13 Chair: We are not discussing the Prime Minister. people who were locked up, all of whom were foreign Mrs May: I understand you want to talk about what I nationals. I just wonder now what proportion of TPIM am saying rather than the Prime Minister. I think we people are foreign nationals and whether some of should take the opportunity that is ahead of us to them may have come off TPIMs because they have reform the European Union and look at free gone back to their country of origin. movement. There are concerns across Europe from a Mrs May: Since the TPIMs were introduced, 10 number of other countries about free movement and notices have been issued, nine of whom were British particularly about the abuse of free movement. It is nationals. right for us to say that we should look at the accession treaties for new countries coming into Europe, and Q218 Chair: You made it very clear, Home within that we could look at the question of whether Secretary, that you were against documents being we should have greater flexibility rather than just a leaked, in reference to The Guardian. Have you found period of time for transitional controls. Maybe out who leaked the document on EU migration to The controls should be in place until the national income Sunday Times? of a country has reached a certain percentage of the Mrs May: No. I am aware that obviously there are main country’s national income, or indeed, if reports that have appeared in the paper, Chairman. As migration reaches a certain level, whether there is a you know, it is a long-standing practice not to possibility in those circumstances to introduce a cap. comment on leaked documents. Chair: That is extremely helpful. Mrs May: That is what I have said. Q219 Chair: We understand that, but obviously Mr Clegg, who is new to Government—he has only been Q220 Chair: That is helpful. It does not address my there three and a half years—did not know this point that I put to you about Mr Clegg. Obviously, because he has issued a damning criticism of your nobody has told Mr Clegg that you are not planning Department and, therefore, by implication, you. He to do this tomorrow, but this is what you are planning said this just now, “My advice to the Home Office is to do, as one would expect as the Prime Minister sets to spend less time leaking policies that are illegal and out around Europe, after the next election, should he undeliverable and spend more time delivering on the win the election, because the pledge is to have a policies that we have agreed as a Coalition referendum in 2017. Of course you want to look at Government, notably the reinstatement of exit checks. the treaties and the issue of freedom of movement, but If we pulled up the drawbridge now and said to Mr Clegg is concerned that you are doing this now. German lawyers or Finnish engineers or Dutch Do you accept that now, as opposed to what might accountants that they can’t come to work, it would be happen in two years’ time, a cap on EU migration a disaster for our economy.” You are the head of your would be unlawful under the treaties? Department. This is the Deputy Prime Minister Mrs May: I am not proposing to introduce such a cap criticising your Department, saying that what is being now. What I am talking about is the possibility of proposed, which is a cap on migrants coming from the reform in the future. EU, is illegal. Chair: I accept that. It is not for now and you accept Mrs May: I am aware of what has appeared in the that a cap now would be unlawful under the treaties? press. As I say, I do not comment on leaked Mrs May: What we have is the situation that exists documents, but I will comment on the issue of free under the treaties. For example, the accession treaties cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 45

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP of Romania and Bulgaria were clear on the piece of work and it is not right to do this piece of transitional control period. That is in place. We are work.” You never asked him. doing a number of other things around that. Mrs May: The Migration Advisory Committee and, Chair: But it is not a cap. indeed, others made it clear that they did not think Mrs May: That is not a cap. We are doing a number that predictions of this sort were appropriate. I will of other things around that. look and see if I can find the— Chair: You seem reluctant to say the words, “The cap is unlawful now.” It is unlawful now. Q223 Chair: Not to this Committee he didn’t. Unless Mrs May: What I am saying is everybody understands he has had a change of heart, what he said to us what the situation at the moment is. exactly a week ago is he was never asked to and, had Chair: Except Mr Clegg. he been asked to do it, he would certainly have done Mrs May: No. As I understand it, he has made a it. Had we known he had not been asked, we would statement on the basis of, “If we were going to do this have written and asked him. Are there special now this is what the situation would be.” What I am arrangements being put in action for 1 January for the saying is I am not proposing to do it now. We are arrival of Romanians and Bulgarians? We understand talking about potential reforms of accession treaties that one police officer has gone to a village called for the future. Apata in the Carpathian mountains to tell the people Chair: With the greatest respect, and I have great of Apata not to come to Britain unless they have a admiration for you, Home Secretary, that is not what job. Apart from this police commander, are there any the Deputy Prime Minister has said just now. He said, other arrangements being made for 1 January? “My advice to the Home Office is to spend less time Mrs May: We have changed some regulations in the leaking policies that are illegal and undeliverable.” He Home Office that will come into play on 1 January in is talking about now, not in two years’ time. He might two particular areas. One is the limitation to six not be the Deputy Prime Minister in two years’ time. months of people being able to claim benefits in We never know who might be Prime Minister. relation to being unemployed and, unless they can Mrs May: That statement has an assumption within it, show that they have a genuine prospect of getting but just to pick up, obviously, the point about exit work, that change in the regulation enables the DWP checks, of course the Home Office is working on exit now to tighten up on their definition of a genuine checks. We have a Coalition Government agreement prospect of employment. on the reintroduction of exit checks. Chair: Yes, and I am sure we will have questions on that, but in terms of practical arrangements, any Q221 Chair: Let us then take what Mr Clegg says practical arrangements for 1 January? and take the most important issue that is going to face Mrs May: Well, we have also changed the regulations you in the next 15 days, which is the arrival of to ensure that we are better able to prevent people Romanians and Bulgarians, because the transitional who have been removed from the UK because they arrangements come to an end. Are you expecting a are not exercising their treaty rights—for example, surge of people coming in after 1 January? Are you people who may have been begging or rough going to be looking at the schedules for Luton airport sleeping—from just using a revolving door and to see how many people have arrived from Bucharest coming straight back by changing the regulations such or are you satisfied that it is going to be pretty that they will not be able to return for 12 months. smooth? Chair: But any practical arrangements? Mrs May: Chairman, I am afraid I will repeat what I Mrs May: It will be very much business as usual. have said to this Committee previously and, indeed, said in other public arenas. We have not made a Q224 Chair: That is not what Mr Sedwill told us. Mr prediction about the numbers of people who may Sedwill, who was sitting in your chair two weeks ago, come from Romania and Bulgaria into the United said that Olympic-style procedures were being put in Kingdom or, indeed, into other member states who place just in case there was a rush of people in also removed the transitional controls, states like January. He obviously has not told you this. Germany and France. That decision not to make a Mrs May: Chairman, I can assure you that it will be prediction, of course, has been referred to by business as usual. independent advisers such as the Migration Advisory Chair: There are no Olympic-style procedures being Committee who indicated that it was very difficult to put in place to deal with the rush of people in January. make those sorts of predictions given the number of It is only Captain Mainwaring who is going to be variables in the issue. standing there. No special arrangements, business as usual? Q222 Chair: Home Secretary, that is not quite Mrs May: I can assure you that it will be business as correct. If you read the evidence of the chairman of usual. As I say, we have not made predictions as to the Migration Advisory Committee to this Committee the number of people who will be coming through the exactly a week ago, when Sir David was sitting in the borders. It is the case that a number of other member seat you are sitting in, he was very happy to do a states will be removing the transitional controls at the document—a research study—into how many people same time. It is not the same as when the A8 were were coming here, but he was never given, in his able to have full free movement when, of course, we words, the homework from yourself. The Migration were the only major European country not to have Advisory Committee did not say, “We will not do this transitional controls. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Ev 46 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP

Chair: Why does the Permanent Secretary think that Mrs May: I am interested that you are of the opinion Olympic-style procedures have been put into place in that people in Romania and Bulgaria are waiting for case there is a rush of people in January and you do the views of Parliament on this particular issue before not think this is happening? they make any decisions. As I have said, the Mrs May: I have obviously discussed arrangements Immigration Act—the Immigration Bill as it is now— with the Permanent Secretary and he is clear, as I am, will only come into force later next year. It is not that it is business as usual. something that comes into force on 1 January. It still has to go through the House of Lords. Q225 Mark Reckless: Home Secretary, are we going What we are properly doing as a Government is taking to hit our immigration target? the action that we can. I have indicated the two areas Mrs May: It still remains our aim to hit that target. where the Home Office has already changed the Just as I do not make a habit of predicting whether regulation. The DWP is working on the issue of the we are going to do these things, I continue to work habitual residency test. There are other changes the towards that target. DWP will be making in relation to the length of time people have to be here before they are able to claim Q226 Mark Reckless: The Deputy Prime Minister benefits and the test for somebody being able to say has concerns that imposing numerical restrictions or that they are working in the UK or have a prospect of restrictions on particular countries, for instance work in the UK to make sure that is genuine Bulgaria and Romania, would be illegal. Could we employment. There are a number of changes that the perhaps deal with that by supporting Nigel Mills’ Government is making that I think are entirely right amendment to extend the transitional controls? and proper and within our scope and capacity at the Mrs May: You will be aware as well as I am, Mr moment. Reckless, of the legal situation in relation to the accession treaty that was negotiated by the last Q229 Mark Reckless: Home Secretary, we went to Government, which indicates that transitional controls Romania. We saw considerable interest in the UK should come off on 1 January. debate on this and a particular anger against The In relation to the action that we can take on matters Guardian, who were seen to have stirred up anti- around immigration, I am pleased to say that immigration sentiment on this issue. Their piece may obviously we have seen immigration coming down. have been tongue in cheek, but I think that was lost We have seen net migration from outside the EU at in translation in Romania. Given the comments of the its lowest level since 1998. Last year, 100,000 fewer Deputy Prime Minister, has he done anything to help people immigrated to the UK than did in 2010. On you in your efforts to get immigration down to that the measures where we have made changes across our target? immigration arrangements, we have seen that having Mrs May: The efforts to get immigration down to the an impact. Of course, I continue to look at these issues sort of numbers that we are aiming to achieve are and, in relation to people from within the EU and ongoing. We have made significant changes as a elsewhere, obviously have been looking to make Government across various aspects of our changes to reduce the pull factors for the UK and immigration policy and all the routes of entry into the some of those changes are going through in the UK. As you know, we have put the cap on the annual Immigration Bill. limit on non-EU economic migrants. We have significantly changed the student visa route, so we Q227 Mark Reckless: Would it not be sensible to have been rooting out abuse. We have changed family allow Parliament an opportunity to vote on Nigel visas and we are seeing an impact in all of the areas Mills’ amendments to extend the transitional controls that we have undertaken work. before they are lifted rather than after? Mrs May: Sorry, before? Q230 Mark Reckless: What about the Deputy Prime Mark Reckless: Would it not make sense to allow Minister’s idea to have a bond—make people from Parliament to vote on Nigel Mills’ amendment to certain countries pay a large sum of money that might extend transitional controls before they are lifted be refunded? Did you feel that was a useful rather than after? contribution from Nick Clegg? Mrs May: Regardless of when the vote is held in Mrs May: In fact, both parties in the coalition had relation to any amendment of that sort, the Act does looked at the issue of a bond. I was clear that any not come into place until it gets Royal Assent. On the bond that was introduced would be for those current timetable, it will be getting Royal Assent circumstances where there was a concern that before the end of this Session. It is not a question of somebody appeared to meet the requirements to come whether a vote is taken before the controls are lifted. into the UK, but there was an uncertainty from the Any Act does not come into place until then. entry clearance officer as to whether they would meet the requirements. There were others who felt that it Q228 Mark Reckless: Would it not be helpful for was something that would be more permissive in people considering perhaps leaving Romania and terms of encouraging more people to come into the Bulgaria to come and work in the UK to know the UK. The Government has made clear that at this stage intentions of Parliament in this matter prior to 1 we will not be progressing with a bond. January so they do not perhaps waste time and money coming if they are then only going to be sent back Q231 Mark Reckless: Could I ask what follow were the law to be amended in this way? through there will be on this limit of 70,000 net cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 47

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP migration from the EU that appears to have been your team were not involved in any way with this proposed? leak. Mrs May: You are talking about something that has Mrs May: As I indicated to the Chairman earlier, I am appeared in the press and, as I say, I will not comment not in the position of knowing where the leak has on something that has appeared in the press of that come from. I am just musing. I think perhaps I will sort. What— leave your first comment in relation to The Guardian. Mark Reckless: Do you regret the leaking of this I could challenge you on that, Dr Huppert, but I think document? I will not. Mrs May: There are a lot of assumptions being made Dr Huppert: We had a very interesting session. It is about the leaking of this document, which I have to possible that it was somebody from your team who say I would challenge. leaked it? You cannot rule that out? Mark Reckless: Do you regret it? Mrs May: No, I would certainly not have expected it Mrs May: I regret any leaked document. As I to be somebody from my team that had leaked any indicated earlier, the issues about the question of document. potential reform of new countries that come in and the accession treaties and the rules on full freedom of Q235 Dr Huppert: Can I move on to something that movement and rights of movement across the EU are has not been leaked; it has been published, quite something that I think it entirely right and proper are clearly? Have you seen the work from UCL looking taken in terms of the debate about the reform of the at the fiscal effects of immigration to the UK, which EU. I have raised a number of ideas about how that found that over 10 years EEA immigrants contributed could go. The Prime Minister has raised a number of to the fiscal system about £22.1 billion towards our ideas about how that debate could go. I think it is right economy and another £2.9 billion from non-EEA that we have that discussion and debate about it. countries? Have you seen that study? Mrs May: I am aware that there are a number of Q232 Mark Reckless: There have been comparisons studies. I am not aware of the details of the particular study you refer to. I know there have been a number with Switzerland and the process they have for of studies that have looked at the impact of migration safeguarding around a numerical target, whether it is on the UK economy. When I came into this job, it was 70,000 or otherwise. If you were not able to achieve the view of the previous Government and it was the through the renegotiation measures such as those that orthodoxy that, by definition, all immigration was are referred to in this document, would you then good for the economy and had no negative impacts at support the UK leaving the EU in order to regain all. I did not believe that, which is why I did ask the control of our borders? Migration Advisory Committee to look at that issue. Mrs May: As you will be aware, Mr Reckless, the The Migration Advisory Committee looked commitment that has been made is a commitment that specifically, first of all, at the question of job has been made by one party within the coalition—by displacement. We know that the “lump of labour” the Conservative party—that we would look to that argument is a fallacy—there is not just a finite number reform of the European Union and then look to put of jobs to go round—but I did not believe that that to a vote of the British people. It would then be immigration had no impact on people living here in a decision of the British people in a referendum as to the UK getting jobs. The Migration Advisory whether the UK remained within the European Union. Committee were clear: for the period 1995 to 2010 it found that for every 100 non-EEA migrants coming Q233 Mark Reckless: If we did not achieve these into the UK, 23 British people living here would be reforms to free movement, which side of that displaced from getting jobs. There is an impact and referendum would you be on? many people feel it, and the people who feel the Mrs May: These are not the only reforms that would impact of immigration most are generally those at the be being sought in relation to the future of the lower end of the income scale. Jon Cruddas has said European Union. I would make a decision at the time, that the policy of immigration of the last Government in relation to the package, as to the vote that was was a covert 21st century incomes policy. going forward. In the past, I have said that I would hope that we would be able to put to the British people Q236 Dr Huppert: I think many of us have heard a package that has resolved their concerns and issues that. Can I ask you specifically on your assessment of in relation to membership of the European Union. I the fiscal impact of migration? There are a number of think the dynamics in Europe are such that attitudes other factors as well. This paper suggests £25 billion in a number of countries are changing at the moment. over 10 years. Is that a figure you recognise? What is Chair: Thank you, Home Secretary and colleagues. your best estimate of the fiscal impact? Do you have We need to speed up the questions. something better than this? Dr Huppert: Thank you very much, Chair. Mrs May: As I say, there are a number of estimates Chair: Do not take that as a personal criticism, Dr that are being put around by academics and others in Huppert. relation to the impact. What I have indicated is that, in a very practical sense, when I looked at the Q234 Dr Huppert: I am glad that you have such a orthodoxy view in relation to immigration, I did not clear position. You will not comment on leaks except believe that immigration had no impact and those in The Guardian, as we heard earlier. therefore— Presumably you could just reassure us that you and Dr Huppert: That is a different question. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Ev 48 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP

Mrs May: The Migration Advisory Committee has been raised. They are Governments of different make- done some more specific work for us in a number of ups in terms of the political make-up of the areas as to what the impact of immigration is, and that Governments of the member states, but it is Interior is part of the background and the basis on which— Ministers looking at the practical implications of what Dr Huppert: You do not have an assessment on the is happening and recognising that there are problems net fiscal impact, then? Would you like to write to us arising, particularly obviously around abuse of free with one? movement, and feeling that something needs to be Mrs May: I am happy to indicate to you the work that done about it. the Migration Advisory Committee has done on behalf of the Home Office in this area in relation to the Q240 Chair: Let us just close Romania and Bulgaria. impact of immigration. You did not manage to get to Romania in the end? Dr Huppert: They did not look at fiscal impacts. Mrs May: No, I have not visited. Chair: No, but your expectation is that it is going to Q237 Michael Ellis: Home Secretary, net be a smooth transition, it is business as usual and, immigration has fallen very significantly under your therefore, you are going to be able to cope with the watch, hasn’t it? numbers who come in? Mrs May: It has. Mrs May: As I said, Chairman, I think it remains Michael Ellis: In fact, particularly from outside the business as usual. We have made no predictions for European Union. Did I hear you say something like the numbers who will be coming in. We have been 100,000 less? taking steps to reduce the pull factors for the UK. As Mrs May: I think the three key figures are that net I have said, of course, that would not apply just to migration overall has fallen by almost a third from its Romania and Bulgaria, but across the board. I think it peak in 2010. Last year, 100,000 fewer people is right that the Government takes the action that is immigrated to the UK than in 2010, and if you look available and open to it at this time. at net migration from outside the EU, it is at its lowest level since 1998. Q241 Chair: At the moment, there are no proposals for a cap on the number of EU migrants, but this is Q238 Michael Ellis: Thank you. I do not want to ask work in progress for discussions that you are planning you about the leak because it is quite right that you do to have at some stage in the future? not comment about leaks. Is it not correct, generally Mrs May: I think it is absolutely right to look ahead speaking as to the issue, that there are huge disparities to the reform of the EU and to include the question of in the economic conditions and status of many of the freedom of movement and particularly when European Union countries? Do you think in the accession countries can have full access to the free circumstances it is perfectly reasonable that countries movement rights. like the United Kingdom, and perhaps Germany, look at the issue of unfettered freedom of movement Q242 Chair: Excellent. Let us just deal with a between the European Union? Do you think that is a number of points, then I am going to release you legitimate issue for this country and others, perhaps because I know you have other duties. First of all, as like Germany, to be looking at? far as the Andrew Mitchell issue is concerned, when Mrs May: I think it is legitimate for us to look at it. you last appeared before us you were very clear you Indeed, over the last three and a half years I have thought there ought to be disciplinary proceedings been talking about abuse of free movement within the against those responsible following the IPCC report. Justice and Home Affairs Council in Europe, and a Since then, of course, the IPCC has announced those number of other member states have joined our proceedings. Someone is being charged with a concern in relation to this issue. Some work is being criminal offence. He entered a “no plea” today. Eight done under the Commission. Indeed, European other officers are the subject of disciplinary Commissioner Reding has accepted now that there is proceedings in the Met. A whole host of chief a degree of abuse that takes place. I think member constables and others have apologised to Mr Mitchell. states would disagree with her about the extent of that. Do you think that it is now time to turn the page on We think it is greater than the Commission has this whole issue to allow the misconduct proceedings indicated, but it is a matter of concern and, therefore, to reach a formal conclusion and the criminal it is entirely right that I should discuss this issue with proceedings to also be dealt with and then for people other colleagues across Europe. to move on, or do you think there is a wider issue of integrity in the police that this whole matter has Q239 Michael Ellis: So there is a problem, or some thrown up? series of problems, with the current regulations as they Mrs May: Obviously, the misconduct proceedings and relate to an unfettered freedom of movement within the criminal proceedings must take their course and the European Union and they can be found from left come to their conclusion as appropriate. It has raised and right and from a number of different countries a concern for a number of people. This, alongside a within the member states of the European Union. If number of other examples that we have seen— you are having discussions with Ministers of the Chair: Hillsborough, Savile. Interior from European Union member states, that Mrs May: Indeed. I think all of these have come would not be unreasonable, would it? together to raise some issues in the public mind about Mrs May: No, I think it is entirely appropriate. It is integrity. The vast majority of police officers operate across a number of Governments that this concern has absolutely honestly and with integrity day in and day cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 49

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP out, and do a great job in keeping us safe and fighting Q247 Mr Winnick: Apartheid has been very much crime. Obviously, where there are those who do not in the news with the mourning of Nelson Mandela. If act in that way, sadly it does have an impact on that form of apartheid was totally wrong, brutal and public confidence. evil, as we all know, would you accept, Home Secretary, that any form of gender segregation in our Q243 Chair: But is it time to turn the page on this country, which would obviously be different from whole episode? what occurred in South Africa, but based on the same Mrs May: Well, as I say, I am not sure what you are principle—separating men and women in public expecting me to do in turning the page because the places—should be condemned? misconduct proceedings and the criminal proceedings Mrs May: I think that in public places it should be must come to their conclusion. possible for men and women to be sitting together Chair: When those are over? equally and not to be segregated. Mrs May: I announced earlier this year a package of measures in relation to police integrity. I am pleased Q248 Mr Winnick: When you say that, would you to see that the College of Policing published a draft accept that there is a responsibility to try and ensure code of ethics. I think they have had 3,000 responses with segregation of that kind—Obviously, what to that draft code of ethics, which obviously they will happens in religious places is a matter for the religious now be looking at with a view to publishing a final people, and it is not one religion but a number of code of ethics at some stage next year. religions that segregate inside their places of worship. That is a matter for them. When it comes to public Q244 Chair: Today, you published your Modern places, do you think that the Government and Slavery Bill. We warmly welcome this. Obviously, we Parliament itself have a role to ensure that there is no have all seen this case in Brixton of these people who question of segregation in universities or, as I say, in were kept as slaves for nearly 30 years. Do you have other public places based on gender? any feel as to what the extent is of slavery in this Mrs May: It is right the Government should make country as opposed to the EU, where somebody has it absolutely clear that we do not expect to see such put the figure at 880,000—almost a million people? segregation, particularly in places like universities, but Do we know a figure for the UK as yet? in other public places, too. I am not sure, when you Mrs May: We do not have a figure for the UK. Sadly, said Government had a role to play, whether you were we do not know the extent of this problem in the UK. thinking of some sort of issue around a legislative role We know the number of referrals to the national to play. I am not sure. I think what the Government referral mechanism, but I do not think that would be should say is a very clear message about how we in any way covering all the cases in the UK. Indeed, expect people to operate in the UK in public places. I believe Frank Field, who has published his panel’s Chair: Thank you. I think Mr Winnick’s views are report on public evidence sessions today, has indicated similar to those of all members of this Committee, as a figure of something like 10,000 victims, but we do expressed by you. not know whether that is the correct figure. It could be lower, but it could indeed be higher. This is one of the issues. Q249 Michael Ellis: Home Secretary, on the modern slavery point, can more be done without legislation? Q245 Chair: Do you have high expectations for this Do you think we can act in any way expeditiously Bill? without legislation? When it comes to legislation, I Mrs May: I think this Bill is going to toughen up our think the way current law is, there are a number of ability to deal with the perpetrators of this terrible different statutes found all over the place and different crime, to deal with the slave drivers, and if we can laws of different ages that could be consolidated. Is pursue and prosecute and put behind bars more of the that what you have in mind or not? slave drivers there will be fewer victims in the future. Mrs May: The Modern Slavery Bill will do a number of things. One of them is certainly bringing together Q246 Chair: As you know, the Committee has the various offences around trafficking and modern started an inquiry into FGM. Do you share our slavery, which are currently spread around a number concern that nobody has been prosecuted as yet in all of other pieces of legislation. They will be bringing the years that it has been a crime? that together in one place. We will also introduce an Mrs May: I do share your concern about that. This anti-slavery commissioner. We will increase the was a position that was taken. It had support across maximum sentence from 14 years to life and we will parties in Parliament—that FGM was an issue that introduce, for example, the slavery and trafficking needed to be dealt with—and I think we do rightly prevention orders, which would enable action to be need to challenge ourselves as to why it is that there taken against an individual who had been convicted have not been the prosecutions. There are issues who comes out of prison. Currently, they may very around people being willing to come forward when well go back to being a gang master, doing exactly this practice is being undertaken. There is much work the same thing, but it will be possible under those being done by various organisations to try to ensure orders to prevent somebody, for example, from being that we can see some prosecutions. a gang master. Chair: Thank you. Mr Winnick has a question and Michael Ellis: So simplifying and consolidating it? then, colleagues, the Home Secretary does have to be Mrs May: Simplifying and pulling it together, but we away, so if you could make it as brief as possible. will also be publishing an action plan in the spring cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2014 17:15] Job: 036429 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/036429/036429_o001_steve_HC 235-iii CORRECTED transcript.xml

Ev 50 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 December 2013 Rt Hon Theresa May MP that will look at those issues that do not require Mrs May: I am aware that a number of approaches legislative action. have been taken by different countries around the Michael Ellis: I know you are pressed for time, but world. That is a matter that is being looked at within you are looking at something in the spring that will the Home Office at the moment. It is also the case, not require legislation. Can you say anything more notwithstanding work that was done 15 years ago in about that at the moment? the Czech Republic, that the approach we are taking— Mrs May: Yes. We are looking at a number of things. finding a means of making sure that we can properly For example, I have indicated I will be reviewing the evaluate an approach that is about getting people off national referral mechanism because some questions drugs and ensuring that we do not just churn people have been raised about how that operates. We will be through a system, but have a real meaningful and looking at the issue of support that is given to victims. lasting impact—obviously takes time and is One of the points that have been made by a number something that cannot be evidenced simply overnight. of NGOs is that, for some victims, they actively want to return home, but obviously not to be in the same Q251 Dr Huppert: It would be too cynical to circumstances that led to them being trafficked in the suggest that it is simply because the Czech report first place. How we can help and support them in that found that criminalising drugs increased people taking is one of those issues. it and made people’s health worse? That is not why it Michael Ellis: I was hoping you were going to say is not referred to? something about victim support. Thank you. That is Mrs May: As I have indicated, some work is being all I have. done to look at the approach that is taken in other countries around the world. There are a number of Q250 Dr Huppert: Home Secretary, one thing I examples of conflicting approaches taken and welcomed in the Government’s drug strategy from conflicting evidence as to what the right approach is. 2010 was a commitment to develop an evaluation Dr Huppert: The absence of international framework to assess the effectiveness and value for comparisons for the evaluation framework for the money of that. It seems right that that should be an 2010 drug strategy is because you are still working evidence-based approach. I am pleased that we have on it? finally, after much chasing, had the publication of that Mrs May: No. Sorry, I apologise. We have looked at evaluation framework. Three years through, we are what we should be doing here in the UK in terms of able to work out whether it might be working. I am how we evaluate the impact of our drugs strategy. surprised it has taken three years. It also seems rather Chair: Thank you. Any exciting plans for Christmas? thin in terms of what it says. It does not seem a very Bucharest or Sofia or London? good product of three years’ work. Mrs May: None of those, I have to say, Chairman. There are many examples, but I will not ask them Chair: On behalf of the Committee, thank you very all. In particular, on page 18 it says, “Establishing the much for coming here today. We are most grateful to conditions for robust counterfactual for enforcement you for answering so many questions. May we wish is difficult and, as a result, there is little robust you a very happy Christmas and a very happy New evidence.” Do you think the people who put this Year? together were not aware of the huge amount of work Mrs May: Thank you, Chairman, and the same to you done by the Czech Republic in 1998 where they and the Committee. published an incredibly detailed impact analysis? Chair: Thank you. That concludes the Home Would you perhaps have a word with them to suggest Secretary’s session. they have a look at it and include it in an update?

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 01/2014 036429 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 2014 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/