Theresa May fights back over Abu Qatada, human rights and Nick Clegg She took time out at her Berkshire home to tell The Sunday Telegraph about her plans, which she insists will help her party recover some lost political ground. David Cameron must have made his Home Secretary wince when he made his bold pledge to reduce net immigration into Britain to the "tens of thousands" by the next general election in 2015. Immigration figures are notoriously hard to reduce - and the latest official statistics still leave the annual total at around 250,000, giving the government a near-impossible task. Mrs May insists, however, that the target of under 100,000 remains, and says measures already taken, particularly against people coming to Britain to study who then end up settling here permanently, have not yet had the chance to be reflected in the statistics. We've tried to take a very simple view: controlled immigration is right. Immigration has been right for the UK - but not uncontrolled immigration. After launching a review last year, Mrs May was convinced that further measures were necessary to prevent foreign criminals using the "right to a family life" granted them by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to dodge deportation. She pledges that by this summer, she will toughen up immigration rules to stop all but the most "exceptional cases" to succeed on appeal. It's been causing a lot of concern, not just to the government but also to an awful lot of members of the public. By the summer we will have in place new immigration rules which I believe will end that abuse. Like many people, she feels judges have been "gold-plating" the law and blocking the Home Office's attempts to use "qualifications" already existing in Article 8 to remove undesirables. That has not been applied in recent years. I want to see that qualification applied again and that's what we'll be doing with the immigration rules - making it absolutely clear and I have every confidence that that will work. If it doesn't, if it's tested in the courts and we find there's a problem, we'll obviously look at other measures but I'm confident in what we're proposing to do. Moves to allow police, MI5 and other agencies further powers of surveillance over individuals" use of the internet have been dubbed a "snooper's charter" - but, with a slightly forced smile, the Home Secretary makes it clear she is not particularly fond of the term. It's not a phrase I would have used. She prefers to describe the measures, first revealed by The Sunday Telegraph in February, as "communications data capability" - and insists her plans merely extend already existing powers to keep pace with technological advances. Mrs May cites the case of a mobile phone left on a bus which was picked up by the driver and found to contain unpleasant images of children. The police, studying the "communications data around the phone" were able to smash an alleged paedophile ring - with court proceedings still ongoing. The Liberal Democrats, including Tim Farron, the party's president, have attacked the move and Nick Clegg has suggested it will be watered down and a Bill, planned for the Queen's Speech next month, will only be published in draft. Mrs May appears keen to pick a fight, however. I would hope that we will be able to do this in a Bill. I would expect us to be able to so this in a Bill in the next session. but in a way that enables people to have a sight of the clauses. On secret courts, and her link-up with Mr Clarke, Mrs May says that while the initial decision on cases to be held behind closed doors could be taken by the home secretary, the final decision on what "material" should be kept under wraps would always be the preserve of judges. Last month Mrs May visited Jordan, the country to which Britain wants to deport Abu Qatada, the radical cleric, but has been blocked from doing so by the European Court of Human Rights. She said at the time negotiations were "positive" - but little more has been heard. The Home Secretary is keen to give an impression of progress - disclosing that a team of British officials visited Jordan last week and that discussions were down to "some nitty-gritty legal detail." The court ruled Qatada could not be deported without assurances from Jordan that evidence gained through torture would not be used against him. Jordan says it has banned the use of torture, but there is international acknowledgment that it has previously mis-treated prisoners. Mrs May declines to put a timeframe on his deportation - despite being asked if she expected to see the back of him in weeks, months, or by the end of the year. She adds, however: "Hopefully I'm talking about the end of the year. We are making good progress. I hope you'll see from the fact that we sent another group of officials over there just this last week, in the last few days, that I am keen to keep up the momentum on this. The public want him to be deported. I want him to be deported. Mrs May is the first Home Secretary for generations to have to defer to a politician from another party on the Cabinet sub-committee on Home Affairs, a body which is currently chaired by Nick Clegg. Does the fact that her portfolio contains so many potential coalition conflicts - on human rights and immigration for example - make it an uneasy relationship. Her reply suggests businesslike rather than friendly. It's fine that Nick chairs that committee. One of the things this government has done differently from Labour is that we do have robust discussions. Papers are circulated, people talk about them. I see Nick quite regularly on a bilateral basis to talk through what's happening in home affairs as you would expect me to. With local elections looming and the Tories struggling to win support among women voters, what more could be done? She appears anxious female voters should not be seen as a wholly separate class. There are a number of policies we've got that are more specific to women, but women don't just look at those sorts of policies. They look at what a government is doing across the board. The feeling I get talking to women is that they do accept that the government is having to make some tough choices. They perhaps look more at the individual consequences of those choices and I recognise that. "One of the problems with the last [Labour] government was it tried to pigeonhole women and said 'women are only interested in this" and 'women are only interested in that" and actually if you look across the spectrum women are interested in all the policies the government brings forwards." As one of the coalition's most committed Christians (she and her husband attend church every week) her department is also in the lead on moves to allow same-sex marriage by 2015, a move seen by many Tories as an unnecessary priority given the vast amount of other things to do. That is on a timetable - there is going to be a lot of discussion around this particular issue. I think it is an issue about commitment. If one recognises commitment then one should be willing to recognise that for all couples.