Downing Street Says » Queen’s Speech Legislation

Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with Peter Hain’s comment that the risk would be lower under a Labour Government because of the measures being brought in to deal with the terrorist threat the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that as a civil servant he could not get into party political matters but what he could stress was the threat that we faced was real. Unfortunately we only had to look at examples such as the Madrid bombing to understand the reality of that threat. What the Government was proposing to do was to take measures which allowed it to address that threat in a way that was practical, sensible and commensurate with the nature of the threat. In terms of underlining the very real nature of the threat the Prime Minister agreed with that.

Asked what evidence the Government could produce to demonstrate it was best placed to diminish the terrorist threat and on what basis Peter Hain was speaking and if the Prime Minister believed that the Iraq War had diminished the terrorist threat the PMOS pointed out that 9/11 and many other incidents of international terrorism happened before the Iraq War. In terms of the Iraq War we had seen, as the Prime Minister had acknowledged, foreign terrorists along with Saddam loyalists using the Iraq War to try and counter the spread of democracy in the Middle East. The best message and riposte to international terrorism was a combination of security at home and spreading democracy abroad. Asked about countries that were happy to live in a theocracy where it was sacrilege if man made laws were imposed on the will of God the PMOS said that in terms of countries that operated in different ways the important thing was that the dynamic should be towards reform.

Asked if the Government was seeking to create a climate of fear the PMOS said no. What the Government was trying to do was a) deal with a very real threat which did exist, that of international terrorism and b) deal with peoples domestic concerns that were equally real such as anti-social behaviour. Both of those had to be addressed but they had to be addressed by an overall program, which on the one hand ranged across domestic issues from education to drugs into health but equally on an international front the Government was committed to try and seek solutions in the Middle East as well. So it was not just a monotone approach to the issues confronting the Government.

Asked following the arrest of Khaled Sheik Mohammed and others in the last year or two if the Government saw Al Qaeda as a growing or declining threat the PMOS said that it was always a mistake to get into calibrations in as broad a sweep as that. People recognised that there was a real threat and that threat was not a minimal one. Asked if the Prime Minister still believed that the war on terrorism could still be won and when he might be in a position to declare victory the PMOS said that of course you made progress in the war against terror and you continued to bear down on it but it was trite to suggest a specific day on which it would be over and such comments did not match the seriousness of the situation.

Asked why if the threat was real and present why we had to wait so long for the urgent measures such as ID cards and anti terror legislation the PMOS said the important thing was that these measures were introduced in a way that met the threat but also so that they were effective. If you took ID cards as an example the technology of biometrics was developing and would continue to develop. We could scope the speed of that development but it was important that when it was introduced that it worked. Equally people would criticise the Government if we rushed it and it did not work.

Asked if the PM believed that the battle against terrorism should be non-partisan / non-political the PMOS said that there would always be political elements but it was not for him to comment. What he could say however was that the Prime Minister did believe people should focus on the reality of the threat and the need to meet that threat. That was what the measures outlined were intended to do.

Asked to explain why the first of the Queen’s speech debates was on foreign affairs and defence and what the focus of that would be about the PMOS said in terms of the order of debates that had been a matter for discussion and people should wait for the debate but in terms of whether there were issues to discuss, there were, and today’s debate would be opened by Geoff Hoon.

Asked if the Government was publishing any other Bills this week the PMOS said that there would be a Railways Bill published today and also a disability Bill published tomorrow.

3 Comments »

Any comment on Ukraine? Does Yushchenko not need Britain’s support right now, to press for a free and fair election-result, whoever turns out to have won? The reasons why this issue is not high up our agenda are not apparent.
Comment by Chris Kav — 24 Nov 2004 on 9:51 pm | Link
Dear Santa,
For Christmas this year I would like to ask for one thing. Please could you find me an explination for why we pursue the fake plastic dreams of capitalism. It seams that it causes more harm to more people than it does good for anyone. I’m scared Santa, all the people on my road go to work all day and then sit silently all night in the unheavenly glow of a box.
Are we really that innocent? I heard a lot of people are still slaves (some of them make our clothes) and that other people have to leave their homes because the Western money machine wants their homeland resources.
Please explain somebody, terrorism isn’t scaring me, we are.
Comment by tom brown — 26 Nov 2004 on 10:44 am | Link
MRSA, Cold, Poverty, and Alcohol fueled road accidents kill 10,000’s each year.

The "Terror" is a government that is doing little or nothing to prevent these deaths.

Once terrorists are killing more people each year than the inactivity of the government on these local issues -then – we should look at spending extra money on counter-terrorism.

In the mean time I would like a government that takes effective steps to control the real threats to my life.

Does the government have any risk (to life) analysts or are ministers only interested in "Election" issues?

OK stupid question – obvious answer
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 26 Nov 2004 on 4:37 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, November 24, 2004

Queen’s Speech Legislation

3 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries