Downing Street Says » Anti Terror Legislation

Asked whether it was known if the proposal to tighten exclusion powers would cover people already in the UK who had been excluded from other countries, or instead would it only cover asylum seekers, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said it was meant to cover people who were coming into the UK, and in terms of administration, it was primarily for people who it was discovered had been excluded from other countries and as they arrived, their cases would be considered by the Home Secretary. With regards to people who were already in the UK, the aim would be to make it easier to deport people if they were causing problems.

The PMOS said that the Home Secretary had instigated an immediate review of the powers he had to exclude people from this country who were likely to incite terrorism. In that review, the Home Secretary would look at the relationship between exclusion decisions made by other countries, such as the US and EU compared and the process in the UK. The Home Secretary could then compare cases and made a reviewed decision.

Asked that if someone had been granted asylum and they were found to be inciting terrorism, would their asylum status therefore be revoked under the new order, the PMOS said that yes, it could be. The PMOS explained that he was "sketching" what areas the review would want to look at, rather than outlining the detail of proposals which would come later.

Asked how many pieces of legislation were being looked at, as presumably, a prevention of terrorism bill was being examined, but was there also legislation of exclusion included as well, the PMOS said there were three different aspects to consider. The first was the bill that had been planned for the autumn, and we were talking to the police and security services with regards to its content. The second aspect was that we would be seeking a consensus with the Opposition parties about their bill. The final aspect was the Home Secretary had already launched a review into areas such as his exclusion powers, and also deportation, as we were urgently seeking to conclude negotiations, especially with regards to countries in North Africa. We were also pointing out that the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill was a two-way street, as it would not just it would protect Muslim communities but also enable the authorities to prosecute extremist Muslims who incited hatred against others.

Asked if there was a risk that someone might incite terrorism, should they be granted asylum in the first place, the PMOS replied that at the moment, these areas were still being sketched out, but clearly if the authorities had deep concerns about someone, then that was obviously something that would be taken into account in their asylum application. Equally, however, if people were to be found to be inciting hatred, we would have the ability to revoke their licence if they had breached the terms of it. The PMOS said it was a double safety lock approach, i.e. that asylum could be granted if someone was deemed not to be threat, but at the same time, have the ability to revoke it if necessary.

Put to the PMOS that in terms of Human Rights Convention, was there to be any review of that, as the Home Secretary appeared to be "restrained" in what he could do, the PMOS said that while the position on the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) remained as it was, there was active consideration about what measures could be taken within it, and in all of this, we would be guided primarily by the advice given from the police and security services.

Asked for further explanation of the "memoranda of understanding" and how would they work, the PMOS said it would be a commitment on how people would be treated once they were deported, given that the courts in the past had concerns about allegations of mistreatment in certain countries. Therefore, if we could get a commitment that mistreatment would not occur, then we believed that would help the process of deportation.

Asked if it was true that it was rather difficult to deport people as it either breached the law, or the ECHR, and also was there any news on English language tests or civic knowledge tests being used, the PMOS said he was not aware of the last point of the question. With regards, to the first, that by its very nature, it was a difficult area in which we had to operate, which was why we had been careful to delineate exactly what the police and security services thought we needed. We were trying to build a consensus around that, given the controversy we had faced in the past putting through legislation. The primary driver, however, was identifying what was it that we needed to deal with the threat, as that would be the driver that guided us through both stages.

Asked for further guidance about the summit on Tuesday, and was it the Prime Minister’s intention to have at the meeting some people who were closer to some of the Muslim clerics, for example, the PMOS replied we did not have a final list of attendees as we were trying to make the meeting as representative of the Muslim community as possible. We were taking care to try and invite people who represented the overall community. We recognised that the Muslim community, no more than any other community, was not a monolith. At the same time, we did not devalue the official voices any more than we said they were the only people who could represent the views within that community.

Asked if it was possible at the moment to revoke asylum status, the PMOS said that if someone was perceived to be a threat to this country, then someone could be deported if that was considered to be conducive to the public good. Again, that was subject to the caveat that they could be returned to that country.

Asked for further information on the number of clerics, for example that had been excluded on security grounds, the PMOS suggested the journalist spoke to the Home Office.

Asked if the Home Secretary, in the case of someone that had already been excluded from another country, had the power to deport them, or did he need to seek that in legislation, the PMOS said that this could be achieved by a tightening of the process that we already had. In such cases, there would not just be the existing process, but on top of that, a built in automatic review process.

Put to the PMOS that with all the legislative proposals building up, was it not more likely Parliament would have to be recalled in September, the PMOS said that we would be guided by the consultation processes we had put in train, particularly that with both the police and security services as to the content and pace that they thought were necessary to get any additional powers of legislation passed. Furthermore, we hoped the process of consultation with the parties meant it would be easier to get legislation through the House than it had been in the past. Finally, there would be consultation with the communities. The important thing was, however that what the police and other authorities advised us they needed, and at what pace.

Asked if we were not, therefore saying that there would not be a recall in September, the PMOS said that we were not going to put the cart and horse in the wrong order. The PMOS said we should find out first of all what the advice was, along with the consensus, content and pace and then we would decided what was necessary.

Asked what was now about the Home Secretary taken into that someone had been banned in another country, and also how would the current process change as a result, the PMOS replied that what would be different was if someone had been excluded from the US or the EU, then that would mean their case would automatically go to the Home Secretary’s desk, and it would be a further consideration build into the process. The PMOS said he was not giving people an exclusive list of what might considered, as this was an ongoing review.

Put to the PMOS that we were simply rubber stamping any request from the police for new powers, the PMOS said: no. If the police and the intelligence services came up with advice and proposals, then given the circumstances, we felt duty bound to give that very serious consideration. That did not take away the normal ministerial responsibility and also the duty to put that into legal form. What the PMOS was indicating, however, was the importance and the significance we attached to the advice coming from the authorities. The PMOS said it was better that we let the review do its work. What we were trying to do was give an indication of what we were looking at which did not require fresh legislation, but did require a tightening of the procedure.

Asked if the obvious driving force behind the new orders was that we did not want people coming from outside the UK "preaching their own particular poison", PMOS said he did not disagree.

Put to the PMOS that someone from might not be such a problem in another country if the issues were not country related (the journalist cited the example of an anti-slavery protestor burning the American flag), the PMOS said we did have different sensitivities from one country to another, which was a fact of life. Equally, if someone had been excluded, it should be a signal that we needed to look very carefully at the case.

Put to the PMOS that there was no enforcement procedure with regards to the memoranda of understanding, the PMOS said that in terms of relations between countries, they did weigh very heavily before they breached a memoranda of understanding as it did affect the entire bilateral relationship. Therefore, it was by no means right just to dismiss it as another piece of paper, as it was far from that.

Asked if that included Algeria, the PMOS replied he was not going to discuss particular countries, as he had said this morning.

Asked if any thought had been given in the review to exercise the power and regulations that the state must have in order to install certain standards in schools to be taught, the PMOS said that with regards to faith schools, part of the reason we had made certain changes was to bring these schools within the state system, instead of having them operate as private schools outside the system. This was so we could enforce various standards and criteria, and the PMOS said that thirty per cent of state schools in England had a religious character. All but forty five schools were associated with Christian denominations, and of the forty five, thirty six were Jewish schools, five were Muslim schools, two were Sikh schools, one was Greek Orthodox and one was Seventh Day Adventist.

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, July 14, 2005

Anti Terror Legislation

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries