Downing Street Says

Asked whether the amendments to 42 days were being delayed, the PMS said that the amendments had been laid. Tony McNulty was doing broadcast media on the subject at the moment and the Home Office would be briefing on the detail of this.

The three main changes were that the new proposal would bring forward the vote from Parliament which would confirm the Home Secretary’s intention to declare an emergency period to within seven days of the decision instead of the previous thirty days under the previous proposal; secondly, on the exceptional nature of the threat, under the new proposal the 42 day limit could be made if there was a grave exceptional threat and the definition of this was spelt out on the face of the bill; thirdly, the higher limit available had been reduced from 60 days to thirty days.

In general, as we’d said consistently, the Government had always been of the view that there was a need to put in place a reserve power to allow the extension of the period under which people could be detained pre-charge for more than 28 days; that we needed to have the right parliamentary and judicial safeguards in place. The Prime Minister in his article in the Times, set out the main principles and the Government’s approach to the design of those safeguards and that we had always made clear that we were happy to listen and have a discussion on the detail of what those safeguards were. In response to issues that had been raised, we were setting out our revised detailed proposals today.

Put that the definition of a terrorist threat was so detailed and the bill had softened to a point that the likelihood of it being used was very small, the PMS replied that that was not the case at all. We would continue to discuss this with the police and this was a power that the police wanted. The amendments that had been made were done so in consultation with the police and for example, this would cover a situation similar to the bombings in July 2005. The PMS added that he did not want to get into a hypothetical discussion about every single potential circumstance, but the Home Office may be able to give people more information on this.

Asked whether the Prime Minister was concerned that there was confusion between the House of Commons as legislators and the role of the court of law, the PMS replied that as the Prime Minister had set out in his article in the Times, one of the principles underlying this was that it was for Parliament to provide oversight of the overall system and it was for Parliament to approve the Home Secretary’s decision to trigger the introduction of the exceptional period. However, it was for senior judges to oversee individual cases and it was for the Judiciary to approve the detention of individuals for consecutive seven-day periods. So there was that distinction between Parliament giving approval to the general situation that would enable individuals to be detained for more than 28 days, with the Judiciary then providing the oversight on individual cases.

Asked how the Home Secretary could go to Parliament and ask for an extension without giving details and revealing confidential information, the PMS replied that it would be on the basis that there would be a report and advice available from both the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, so the Home Secretary would need the support of both in order to do this. When the Home Secretary was going to Parliament, they would be going to get the approval for the introduction of a general power to enable individuals to be held for more than 28 days. She would have to set out her case to Parliament and it was then for Parliament to decide whether or not they wanted to approve that.

Put that the definition of a grave terrorist threat was ambiguous, the PMS said that that was why there were safeguards in place. The Director of Public Prosecutions had to support it, the police had to support it and Parliament then had to approve it, so there were mechanisms in place to ensure that the Home Secretary was fully accountable for the triggering of this exceptional period. The PMS advised people that he was not a legal expert and there were plenty of people who could give a legal answer including the Home Office. He reiterated that what the Government had in mind was an event or situation similar to the bombings in July 2005 for example.

Asked if MP’s would know the full extent of the crimes being perpetrated or whether only the Home Secretary would have that knowledge, the PMS said that depended on what the constraints were around the reporting of individual cases and individual circumstances, but as he had said, the Home Secretary had to make her case to Parliament in order to trigger this exceptional period and it was up to Parliament to decide whether or not to approve it.

Asked whether it was still true that the Home Secretary would have to make the case to Parliament first, the PMS said the proposal was that Parliament would have to approve the decision within seven days. Asked if there would be an emergency sitting of Parliament if it was not sitting at the time, the PMS said that that would be the presumption, but people should check with the Home Office on the specifics.

Asked why in the definition it made reference to attacks outside the United Kingdom, the PMS said that one thing we ha learned about terrorist incidents over recent years was that terrorists did not always respect international borders.

Asked whether the legislation would apply to an individual or a series of individuals, the PMS said that the legislation referred to an event or situation involving terrorism that caused or threatened the serious loss of human life or serious damage to human welfare in the UK. Put that there wouldn’t necessarily have to be an incident taking place and that it could be a plot being discovered, the PMS confirmed that the legislation talked about threats as well.

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.

» Tuesday, June 3, 2008

42 Days

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries