Downing Street Says » London Bombs

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) told journalists that the list of previous terrorist attacks that the Prime Minister promised to publish during PMQs would be made available by 7pm this evening. Also that the meeting between the Prime Minister and a broader representation of the Muslim Community with the leaders of the opposition would be next Tuesday the 19 July.

In response to the suggestion that the Prime Minister seemed to have said that it was a very important role for the Muslim community to clean out its own backyard and what it was he wanted Muslim leaders to do that they were currently not doing, and whether legislation was any closer, the PMOS said in terms of the Muslim Community the meeting with the four MP’s was an initial meeting. Next Tuesday’s meeting was a further development of that conversation, which would also involve the leaders of the main opposition parties. In terms of how the Muslim community took the issue forward, the better thing was for the Muslim community itself to reach a consensus. Then it could decide how it wanted to take it forward. What had been encouraging today, for example in the remarks made by Shahid Malik MP (Dewsbury) in the House was that he had said condemnation was no longer enough. There was now a recognition that the Muslim community had to take action itself. That very much reflected the conversation this morning. Even though people wanted instant responses it did take a little time for people to reflect and then act. The important thing was that next Tuesday’s meeting was in place so we already knew what the next step in the process was going to be from our point of view. No doubt the Muslim community would also be reflecting on what it itself could do. No doubt there was thought being given there but that was for them to speak about not us.

Asked what we specifically meant by saying the Muslim community needed to take action, did that mean shopping people in or leaders speaking publicly, the PMOS said that the worst thing would be to think that we were imposing something on the Muslim community. What had already happened was that Muslim leaders had clearly stated that these people in no way represented the Muslim community. They had made it absolutely clear that there was no place for this kind of activity or these kinds of people within the Muslim community. They had also made it absolutely clear that they fully supported the police in trying to apprehend all those responsible and involved. All of that was useful, but what we needed to do, which was the broader part of the Prime Minister’s message today, was to find a way to tackle at its root, this perverse ideology, both in this country and worldwide. What we needed to explore with the Muslim community was the best way to do that. The Prime Minister himself had referred, at the international level, to several meetings that were planned and happening in other countries, which were aimed precisely at harnessing moderate Muslims against the extremists. We needed to reflect on how we plugged into that dynamic already there and enhance it. This was what we would do in the coming days. In terms of legislation the Government’s manifesto had identified the two areas where it believed there was a case for further legislation. One of those was preparation for acts of terrorism and the other was taking action against those who would encourage, or glorify or condone terrorism. Part of the process of building a consensus would be about how we took forward that legislation. This would also be strongly influenced through consultation with the police and the other authorities about both the content and the pace at which it was needed. In the past we had experienced difficulty passing anti-terror legislation through the House. This time we would see whether we could build a consensus about the content and the pace and take it from there. It was not an instant answer but it was a very firm dynamic which we hoped to build on. The response in the House today was a very encouraging start to that.

In response to the suggestion that the Pakistani authorities had helped thwart an attempted UK attack earlier in the year, the PMOS explained that we did not comment on operational matters. Asked why the Government was publishing this list of attacks, the PMOS said that the purpose of the list was to illustrate the Prime Minister’s broader point that this was not something that began with a specific event, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. This was part of a continuum of events, which we had seen throughout the world of which London was only the latest example. These were the result of a perverse ideology, which justified in its terms these attacks for a particular reason. What the Prime Minister wanted to illustrate was that you could not take one isolated symptom of the root cause of these problems and say that was what was responsible. You had to see that this perverse ideology was the root cause, which then attempted to justify the terrorist activity. The list was a way of explaining to the public, the media and to everyone the context in which he believed London should be seen. Asked if the chronology would start before September 11th, the PMOS said that it would.

Asked where the Tuesday meeting would take place and who would be on the guest list, the PMOS said that he believed that it would be held at Downing Street. The attendees would include as representative a group of Muslim leaders as possible. Not just clerics, but businessmen and the Muslim society at large. The Prime Minister was anxious to underline the messages he had delivered today and to hear from them what they thought needed to be done to get the shift within the Muslim community that we were looking for, in terms of tackling this issue from within the Muslim community.

Asked for more details about the acceleration of consultation on legislation over the next two weeks, the PMOS said that the process would start with consultation between the Home Secretary and his counterparts. Asked why nationalist leaders were not being included, the PMOS that unfortunately you had to draw the line somewhere and we had drawn it where we felt sensible.

In response to the suggestion that we were banging at the stable door and that our American and European colleagues were saying we were soft and had run a slack ship, the PMOS said that he did not agree with that characterisation of how others viewed us. Other leaders had responded to us, at the G8 last week, in a way that was full of admiration for how we had responded to this attack. In terms of legislation, it was worth highlighting the three major pieces of legislation already taken through the House of Commons in 2000, 2001 and 2005. Not forgetting the fact that the Government had done so in the face of strong opposition outside and inside parliament. The Government had also come back with a manifesto commitment to introduce further counter-terrorism measures in the autumn. The Prime Minister hoped, and there was strong support in the House in the last few days, to try and form a new consensus so that the process of moving legislation forward would be easier.

Asked whether we were differentiating between incitement and extradition on the legislation being brought forward, the PMOS said that there were two distinct approaches. One was to look at whether it was possible to tighten existing powers and to do so within the existing legislation. That was something we would do. Also the Government had identified the two areas where we needed new legislation. Part of the consultation process with the police and security services was to work out which action was best down which route. There would no doubt be some aspects where they would say that could be tightened without legislation and there would be other areas where they would say fresh legislation would be needed. The key point was to have that conversation with them when their primary focus was not on the investigation. This was why it would take a little bit of time. It was equally important to build as strong a consensus around it as possible so that we did not have the delays in the parliamentary process we had seen before.

Asked whether following Charles Clarke’s comments that the Government’s first position on civil liberties had to be to defend against terror if Muslim agitation in the community would be outlawed and if clerics were out of touch with the radicalised youth, the PMOS said that we would act on police advice on what was necessary. If the police were to tell us certain action was needed then we would take that action. That was the key principle that we would operate by. If the police and security services advise us certain measures were necessary we would take that very seriously. That would then become part of the search for a consensus whether it was new laws or tightening of existing legislation. Part of the reason why the Prime Minister thought it was important to meet the four Muslim MPs today and why he thought it was important to hold Tuesday’s meeting was precisely to hear as diverse a range of opinion within the Muslim community as possible. That was not to undervalue in any way the role played by certain organisations. It was simply to try and make sure we heard that range of opinions and that they heard our message also. It needed all the elements within the Muslim community to make clear, not just their abhorrence of the events, but also that they think there needs to be action now so that it does not happen again, if at all possible.

Asked if the Government would revisit faith schools as an issue and whether the Government would have gone further in the Commons with previous legislation if there had been no resistance, the PMOS said that there was no point going over the past, but it was simply a statement of fact that the Government had faced stiff opposition from many quarters in terms of legislation it had tried to pass in the past. There were strict criteria about how faith schools operated and the forms of education they were allowed to teach.

Asked if acts preparatory to terrorism and acts to encourage terrorism were the new legislative measures and whether the measures for tightening up were the extradition issues, the PMOS said that there were a range of issues that we accepted there were legitimate questions about. Therefore what we needed to go through on those range of issues was whether the existing powers were sufficient or did they need added to. Could the existing powers be tightened up or did they need to be added to. Was there a sufficient consensus on, not just content, but also the pace at which we went forward.

Asked if we accepted that the Muslim Council for Britain was now unrepresentative and whether we would be making representations to draw in the disaffected Muslim youth and some of the fringe extreme groups into the dialogue, the PMOS said, as the Prime Minister had early, that he valued the role of the Muslim Council for Britain. We would however be trying to meet as diverse a group as possible. There were already efforts going on to try and reflect voices that came from a more radical background that were opposed to violence. There had to be judgement calls made about whom and when we talked to people. However the important point was that we would make the effort, but it had to be on the basis that this was an issue, which the Muslim community as a whole had to address. So far we had seen a willingness to do so and we welcomed that. Asked if the Prime Minister felt there was a reluctance within the Muslim community to tackle extremism, the PMOS that we had seen since 9/11 a greater dialogue happening between the Government and the Muslim community than ever before. What this faced us with was a need to change gear in what we did and what the Muslim community did and what the wider community did in trying to tackle this problem at its root. Not only in this country but internationally as well. Rather than playing the blame game what we needed to do was concentrate on what would actually make a difference. We would play our part and we were confident that the Muslim community would play its part.

Asked if there was any proposal to include the House of Lords in seeking fast tracking of legislation, the PMOS said that the leader of the opposition had stated that he was willing to take part in the building of a consensus, so had Charles Kennedy. As such we should wait to see how that process went. There was a recognition that we had to address this issue urgently and no doubt people would take cognisance of that sense of urgency.

Asked if by the international community we meant Muslim countries, the PMOS said we were talking about the debate that was going on in the Islamic community worldwide about how to deal with this kind of extremism. This debate was being heard in countries throughout the world. We were looking to see whether there were existing processes that we could participate in or whether there needed to be new process. This was still part of the assessment going on.

2 Comments »

Omygod. Not the promise of more shite legislation that has no relevance to the situation.
Comment by Julian Todd — 14 Jul 2005 on 2:22 pm | Link
I see from the news that we are to have more legislation. Why? We do not use what we have already otherwise "Hook" and others Muslim and "English" of every race and creed would have been inside for incitement to racial hatred a long time ago. In Hook’s case we waited until the US wanted to get him for themselves. Shouldn’t he and others have been deported to the countries that want them for crimes they are alleged to have committed when they started to poison our youth’s minds?
Once again Tony Babes you are talking the talk but doing absolutely nothing. If you don’t get a grip soon everybody will see you have no clothes.
By the way – great statesman-like job recently with this and the EU but now we all need SOME ACTION. That(action)is the sort of thing you might have learned how to do if you had ever had a proper job – which I really doubt.
Can’t wait until you start to talk about Pension Schemes again as your proposed new legislation is an open invitation to schemes currently performing well to perform badly. Who is drafting this rubbish I wonder?
Comment by Roger — 14 Jul 2005 on 7:18 pm | Link

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.

» Wednesday, July 13, 2005

London Bombs

2 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries