Downing Street Says

Asked about the accuracy of the Prime Minister’s assertion that there were hundreds of terrorists in Britain, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that this was not new information. The Prime Minister had in fact said the same thing in the House of Commons last week. As he had made clear then, there were distinctions to be made between different kinds of threat and the threat different people posed. There were different levels of monitoring required but it was accurate to say that there were that number of people there were concerns about. There were different degrees of concern but concern none the less. The Security Services and the Police needed to be able to respond to those concerns in the appropriate way. It was simply a statement of fact. Put to him that saying there were hundreds of terrorists out there might be considered alarmist, the PMOS said what the Prime Minister was most concerned about, as always, was that people should focus on the substance and not interpretation or speculation. The substance, as we had said consistently since 9/11, was that this country did face a threat. That threat varied but it was serious. It was right and proper to underline repeatedly that we should not be complacent about the level of that threat. Questioned further about whether it was right to say we were concerned about these people, the PMOS said that there were levels of concern about potential terrorist action so it was right to say that was why we were concerned. We were not concerned about these people because they were behaving in an anti-social way or some other reason. We were concerned about them because, potentially, they were planning or considering potential terrorist action. Put to him that the Prime Minister had implied that these people were actively engaged, not merely considering terrorist action, the PMOS said that if someone was in any way suspected of being part of a potential terrorist action, no matter how small that part may be, that was the correct phraseology.

Asked if this number included more low level terrorists such as animal rights groups, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister was speaking in the context of international terrorism. Questioned further about the range of terrorist activities that came under the definition of international terrorism, the PMOS said that last Sunday Caroline Flint had said that these measures applied to terrorism per se. He would not get into a hypothetical discussion but people should know that if they broke the law then the law would be applied.

Asked if the Prime Minister was handing a victory to terrorists by talking up the threat, the PMOS said no. ‘Talking up the threat’ was not an accurate description of what had been said. What the Prime Minister had done was describe the facts. It was a fact that the Security Services and the Police were concerned about the activities of hundreds of people. If, god forbid, there were a terrorist incident and the Prime Minister had not set out the facts then people would criticise us for not having alerted the country.

Asked if the Charles Clarke’s letter outlining alterations to the legislation was going to appear in legislative form, the PMOS said in terms of the processology people should ask the Home Office. With regards to yesterday, the amendments were not ready to share with the Commons, which was why it was in the form of a letter to the opposition spokespeople in an effort to be helpful. This was a complicated matter. In the substance the position had not changed at all since it had been set out by the Prime Minister in his Daily Telegraph article. That substance was that where the Security Services or the Police believe a person to be a threat to this country, we should have the ability to respond quickly to that threat. That was the key. On that substance we had not changed one iota.

Put to him that that the leader of the Conservative party had said that the basic principle of house arrest might be something the Lords might try to change and asked if that was an absolute sticking point for the Government, the PMOS said in terms if the action we were taking, as the Prime Minister had said in his Daily Telegraph article, that action was dictated by the needs of the Police and the Security Services. That need was that we had a range of measures appropriate to the level of threat. The extreme end of that, which we recognised was extreme, was the ability to restrict someone’s movement to a very limited area. That was what we were talking about. That was dictated not by dogma, not by anything other than a cool assessment of what the national security needs were. Asked again if this was up for negotiation, the PMOS said that if the advice of the Police and Security Services was that you needed a certain kind of restriction then that was the kind of restriction we would apply. That was something he thought the public found easy to understand and take a firm view on. The Government would do everything within its ability to do was necessary to preserve national security.

Asked if the Government had conceded the position of judicial involvement to the opposition parties after changing procedure on house arrest, the PMOS said he disagreed with that interpretation. Even in the non-derogative orders there was judicial oversight after the event. What we were talking about was aligning the degree of judicial oversight proportionally to the degree of restriction. That was the basis of the Government’s position. It was wrong to say that the judiciary weren’t involved at every stage because they were.

Put to him that the recent conviction of the second shoe bomber had not required any of these measures but was carried out through traditional methods including a trial, the PMOS said that was a fair question. Firstly of all that that case did illustrate was the serious threat we did face and the need to counter that threat. However there was a distinction to be made between cases such as that where it was possible to gather hard evidence and put it before the court, and instances where you had intelligence of an imminent threat but not actual hard evidence. This was all about having the ability act on those few occasions. That was why ACPO and the chairman of the terrorism committee in ACPO fully supported the Government’s position. It was in cases where they knew there was intelligence but we did not have evidence to actually prosecute.

Asked how many terrorist suspects we expected to use these orders on, the PMOS emphasized that we were talking about a range of measures, not just house arrest. In terms of house arrest we had said it would be very few cases. In terms of other measures it would entirely depend on what the advice of the Police and Security Services was. Varying degrees of concern meant varying degrees of monitoring and therefore varying degrees of actions you had to take. You could not simply jump from one to the other but it would be an issue where we would take the advice of the Police and the Security Services.

Asked of the Government was still confident of getting this legislation on the statute books, the PMOS said that we would get this on the statute books because we believed it was in the national interest.

Asked if the Government ruled out further concession the PMOS said that the Government was not going into the House of Lords planning any further moves. We believed we had got he balance right. The balance between listening to concerns about judicial input and on the other hand preserving the substance to take action in the face of a perceived threat to national security. Asked if the diminishing support of the bill in the House showed the Government was losing the argument, the PMOS reminded journalists that the vote was carried.

5 Comments »

"Put to him that saying there were hundreds of terrorists out there might be considered alarmist, the PMOS said what the Prime Minister was most concerned about, as always, was that people should focus on the substance and not interpretation or speculation"

That’s a reversal of position; when the PM took this country into Iraq, it was the interpretation of the available "facts" and the way they were presented in the infamous Dossier that was the important thing: the government deliberately and repeatedly reworded the thing so that it gave a completely different interpretation to the original message, and they hammered home the importance of this procedure during numerous enquiries.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 1 Mar 2005 on 6:21 pm | Link
"We were concerned about them because, potentially, they were planning or considering potential terrorist action"

If we were so concerned about them that we have them under surveillance – well we must have, or otherwise how would we know they are any kind of threat? – and we knew they were *planning* terrorist action, then surely we would arrest them?

But in all seriousness, how do you consider someone a threat because they are *considering* terrorist action??? How on earth do you quantify that???
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 1 Mar 2005 on 6:31 pm | Link
"He would not get into a hypothetical discussion but people should know that if they broke the law then the law would be applied"

So we’re allowed to know a law exists, but not how it should be translated???
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 1 Mar 2005 on 6:33 pm | Link
"the PMOS said in terms if the action we were taking, as the Prime Minister had said in his Daily Telegraph article, that action was dictated by the needs of the Police and the Security Services"

Ah NOW I see! It was the POLICE who went to the government and said "Look cheps, ‘fraid we are gonna need extraORDINARY new powers, what with all these Johnny Foreigners a-plotting". And there was me thinking it was Dave "Shagnasty" Blunkett who’d dreamt up this insanity…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 1 Mar 2005 on 7:01 pm | Link
"That was something he thought the public found easy to understand and take a firm view on"

Then it shows how far removed he really is from Planet Earth, then, doesn’t it?
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 1 Mar 2005 on 7:03 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.

» Tuesday, March 1, 2005

Terror

5 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries