Downing Street Says » Pre-charge Detention Period

Asked what evidence there was to extend the detention period to 56 days, the Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) replied that as we set our in our July document, there was evidence to suggest increasing trends in the length of time that it was necessary in order to question people in complex terrorist case, to make a case for extending the terror detention limit beyond 28 days. But as we also said in the July document, and had been saying consistently, we did make clear that one of the options on which we were consulting was that there would be additional safeguards for any period of pre-charge detention over 28 days including an application of each period of 7 days beyond 28 days to be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions before being decided by a high court judge, the Home Secretary to notify Parliament of any extension beyond 28 days as soon as practicable after the extension had been granted with a requirement to provide a further statement to Parliament on the individual case, and an option for the House to scrutinise and debate this, an annual Parliamentary debate with the powers being subject to annual review as now, and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to report on the operation of the pre-charge detention powers in order to form that parliamentary debate. It had always been the Government’s view that there was a case for considering extending the pre-charge detention period beyond 28 days. But in order to do that there would need to be a number of safeguards put in place. First that each application is considered on a case by case period, and is only extended for fixed periods of time, secondly that there is stronger judicial oversight, and thirdly that there was stronger parliamentary oversight. And finally to ensure that you can’t keep extending it for periods of seven days indefinitely, it would be subject a maximum limit. That was what we were consulting on, that had been the position since July, and that remained the position.

Put that firstly option one in the Home Office document did not refer to fixed period of time, secondly that there was no mention of Home Secretary approval so that was a new safeguard, and thirdly there was no suggestion before that option one and option three could be somehow merged, the PMS replied that we were always clear that this was a consultation on a series of proposals. Four options were put out, clearly there would have to be detailed discussion and consideration on the specifics of these proposals. We did say that there would be a role for the Home Secretary in notifying Parliament of any extension beyond 28 days. In relation to the Liberty proposal referred to, it was interesting that Liberty and others did seem to be accepting that there were circumstances for which it is acceptable for the pre-charge detention period to be longer than 28 days. So if you accepted that as a principal, which some now did, the question is what are the safeguards that need to be put in place in order to enable that. Now the Prime Minister happens to think, and he said yesterday, that declaring a state of emergency in order to deal with what could be a small number of individual case might be seen as a bit of an over reaction. So the question was is there a better way of putting in place the protections you need in order to deliver on what appears to be some consensus around the suggestions that there are circumstances in which it is necessary to hold people for longer than 28 days.

Asked if we were confirming that one of the options the Government was considering was picking up some of those structures that currently exist under a range of powers under the Civil Contingencies Act, and cherry-picking the best bits namely a shorter period of time under which this could take place or extra safeguards for example, and including that into option one, the PMS replied that he was not confirming anything beyond what was set out in the July document, because that was the Government’s stated position. But there was a consultation on this, there were a number of options, and all of this needed to be looked at in detail. The key point was that if there was an acceptance of the need to go beyond 28 days in particular circumstances, then did we have the right safeguards in place. That was what the consultation was about.

Asked what the status was of the latest set of proposals that have emerged from the Home Office, the PMS replied that at the moment the Government’s position was that set out in July. That included a number of options that we were consulting on. We said at the time that our preferred option was the option explained earlier. Clearly there was ongoing consideration in light of the consultation. Asked if this was the conclusion of the consultation, the PMS replied that it was not.

Put that the Prime Minister said in his statement that he thought there was now a consensus on questioning post-charge, and asked what he thought that consensus was, the PMS replied that consensus was that there was a case for extending the period of post-charge questioning. Asked for how long, the PMS replied that he did not have the information to hand.

Asked if we were saying that basically nothing had happened except that the continuing process of consultation was going on, and that today’s reports of a new formula were incorrect, the PMS replied PMS replied that we had set out a number of options in our consultation document in July. As far as he could tell on the basis of what was reported on the BBC this morning, that seemed to be broadly consistent with the options we set out in July, i.e. there is an acceptance that there is a case for going beyond 28 days, there was a need for strongly judicial oversight, a need for stronger parliamentary oversight, but there is a need for a maximum limit so that people could not be held for ever longer periods. But we wanted to do this in a way that did not necessarily mean that you had to invoke a state of emergency if you wanted to hold a handful of people for a slightly longer period of time.

Asked if we were within days of an update on the consultation, the PMS replied that he would not want to put an exact timetable on it, but there would need to be further discussion with the opposition parties.

Asked if there was a consensus among police forces, the PMS replied that the journalist would need to speak to the police forces.

Put that the BBC was reporting this morning that some powers from option three could be brought across into option one, and this was not the Government’s position, the PMS referred journalists to what the Prime Minister had said yesterday. The key element in option three in order to make this happen without legislative change, was that emergency powers would be evoked under the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he did not believe that it would be a good thing for a terrorist group to be given the oxygen of publicity by having us declare a state of emergency in order to investigate it.

Put that we therefore wanted new powers without calling a state of emergency, the PMS replied that there was an ongoing consultation, and we had set out a number of options. A lot of the subsequent debate had been focussed very much on the figure, but actually looking at the July document it was clear that a lot of the safeguards that were being referred to this morning were actually being set out in our option one.

Put that the Home Secretary’s approval of an extension beyond 28 days was new, the PMS replied that option one did say that the Home Secretary would have to notify parliament in relation to each case with the possibility of a parliamentary debate on that.

Asked if there was anything untrue in the BBC report this morning, the PMS replied that he thought the BBC’s report did not seem to be that much more than going back over a lot of the options that were set out in the consultation document in July.

Asked if the report could be classed as the outcome of a spin operation, the PMS that he had no idea – but it was certainly not the outcome of a Downing Street spin operation.

Put that we thought there was an emerging consensus that we could discuss going beyond 28 days, and discuss what safeguards, the PMS replied that Liberty and others did seem to accept that there were circumstances in which it was necessary to hold people beyond 28 days. So if we could accept that as a matter of principal, we were then into a technical detailed discussion of about exactly what was the legal mechanism and what are the safeguards that needed to be in place in order to deliver that.

Asked if we thought the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats accepted that principal, the PMS replied that it was not for him to comment on the positions taken by the opposition parties. But Liberty for example had accepted that there were circumstances beyond which it may be necessary to hold people beyond 28 days.

Asked if Liberty’s position was not so much that they thought this was all right, as we have these powers so that we don’t ignore these powers, and they said there were circumstances when this could be done for example under national emergency, and that we would like to edge the powers back from being a national emergency, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister said yesterday that declaring a state of emergency in order to deal with a small number of individual cases, may be considered to be a bit of an over reaction. So the question was, if you were accepting that there were circumstances in which it may be necessary to go beyond 28 days, was there a better way of achieving this in a way that satisfies peoples concerns about individual liberty.

Put that the importance of the Civil Contingencies Act was that it was designed to comply with the framework necessary to get the UK a temporary derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights, the PMS replied that the Home Office could give a definitive answer on this.

Asked who apart from Liberty were part of this consensus, the PMS replied that it was not for him to comment on the position taken by the opposition parties, but Liberty had quite an important role to play in this debate.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, November 15, 2007

Pre-charge Detention Period

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries