Downing Street Says » Detention Powers

Asked where we stood on 90 days, and would we be bringing that debate back, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) reminded journalists that we had always said that we believed that 90 days was the right answer, and we did so on the basis of the advice from the police at the time. However, the House spoke, and we said at the time that we would respect the wishes of the House. However, we also said that we would take cognisance of continuing police advice, and we would do so. As the Prime Minister had said, if we were going to move on this, we would much prefer that we did so on the basis of consensus, but we should see not only what the police advice was, but also, whether that consensus existed.

Asked when we expected to get that advice, the PMOS said that he did not want to put a timeframe on it. As with all the terror matters, these were matters that we continued to keep under review. As people knew, in terms of legislation, there was a review process going on, and there were several terror cases ongoing at the moment. If we believed that there were gaps in legislation, then we would fill those gaps.

Asked when the legislative review was expected to finish, the PMOS said that there were cases going on that he could not comment on, and he could not speculate about timeframes as a result.

Asked if there were going to be any formal invitation to help form a cross party consensus, the PMOS said that as and when was necessary, we would talk to the Opposition on all sides, as we had done in the past. We needed first of all to consider the representations from the police and to consider the implications of the ongoing cases.

Put that the Government had specifically said that it wanted detailed evidence, the PMOS replied that in the past, we had had the evidential base, and if people remembered, at the time, we did hold a series of detailed meetings with the police, which were then reflected in detailed briefings of the Opposition. Therefore, the PMOS said, in the past, we had moved on an evidential base. That base was reinforced obviously as terror cases continued, and we studied the implications of the cases. We had had the outcome of one case, the Barot case, last week, and the PMOS underlined the fact that that showed in that individual’s case, his terrorism activities started well before 9/11. This was not a new problem.

Put that the existing terror cases would scheduled until Easter 2008, and were we saying that there would be no review before then, the PMOS said that it was a matter of looking at the implications of cases as they concluded, and seeing whether at any stage, there were lessons that could be learned at that stage without waiting for other cases to come forward. This was a matter of judgement and continuing conversation with the relevant authorities, not only the police, but others as well.

Asked if there might be another option between 28 days and 90 days, the PMOS replied that we should see what the representations we received were, and we would take it from there.

Asked if the Government’s view was still 90 days, the PMOS replied that the view was at the time 90 days, but that was not a matter of dogma, but rather, it was a matter of the case that was put to us at the time, because of all the multiple languages, it being a global issue and the translation problems. Those issues still remained.

Put that although there was not a terrorism Bill in the Queen’s Speech, would there be terror legislation in any case, the PMOS replied that the easiest and most accurate way of describing it was that it we identified gaps that needed to be legislated for, then we would legislate. It was a matter of defining if there were gaps, and then filling them. The right thing to do at this stage was not to commit to legislation until we had done that process of analysis.

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.

» Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Detention Powers

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries