Downing Street Says » Liberty Speech

Asked about the review of the right to gain entry to your home, and what we were hoping to achieve, the Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) replied that as the Prime Minister said in his speech, there were currently 250 separate powers relating to the ability of various authorities to enter homes and premises. So the main purpose of the speech was to try and rationalise these different powers into a single code.

Asked if it was a fair assumption to think that there would be fewer reasons to enter you home after the review, the PMS replied that the intention was that there would be a greater degree of clarity about under what powers and on what basis people would be entering homes or premises.

Asked if the Prime Minister had a view on the 30 year rule, and did he have a figure in mind that he would like it reduced to, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister did not have a particular figure in mind, that was one of the reasons why he had set up this review to see if a consensus could be reached around an alternative figure. The purpose of this and one important background factor was that now we had introduced freedom of information, looking at exactly what the interaction was between the FOI rule and the 30 year rule.

Asked how the Prime Minister squared what he said on liberty this morning with his intention to deprive people of more of their liberty by raising the detention without charge to 50 days, the PMS replied that there was a consultation underway on this matter. The Government had set out a number of proposals in July, of which the one referred to was one possible option. The Prime Minister was trying to set out how we can ensure that we deliver on the traditional British value of liberty in a modern world, where information has changed, there was much more information about people’s biometrics, and we were facing new threats from terrorism. It was about how we update a traditional view of liberty in a world where we faced very different challenges, such as in relation to terrorism, and a number of other issues that meant the challenge we faced now was different from the challenge we faced in the past.

Asked if modern liberty just meant less liberty, the PMS replied that was not the case, it was about making sure there were sufficient checks and balances in the system. And to ensure that they are able to respond to the challenges we faced in the 21st century.

Asked where we were on the Bill of Rights, the PMS replied that it was not the intention of the speech to take this forward. Clearly there was a long-term debate and discussion that we would need to have, the Prime Minister initiated that in July and referred to this earlier today. The main focus today was the challenge of delivering on our values of liberty in a modern setting, with a number of very specific and concrete measures to take that forward.

Asked if this would be some years down the line, the PMS replied that clearly there were a number of big steps that would need to be taken before we got to that point, and this was a long term process.

Asked if there was any suggestion in the Prime Minister’s remarks on ID cards and biometrics that there might be a reconsideration of the fundamental proposition, the PMS replied that this was not his interpretation.

Asked to contextualise the speech, the PMS replied that the purpose of the speech was that the British people rightly valued the concept of liberty. It was something that had been associated with this country for many years. But we faced new challenges. The question was how do we adapt to these new challenges whilst remaining true to the British value of liberty. The Prime Minister was looking at how we update and take forward issues such as freedom of information, freedom of expression and media reporting, the right to protest and parliamentary powers, in a 21st century setting.

Asked what the Government’s policy was now on ID cards, the PMS replied that the Government’s policy on ID cards was the policy that had been set out many times before and had not changed.

Put that the Prime Minister referred again today to the possibility of a written constitution, and asked if there would be a referendum on this, the PMS replied that we were a long way from that point. This was a question that needed to be addressed at some point in the future, but that was not really what the Prime Minister was focussing on today, it was very much an issue for the longer term.

Asked if it would be called a "Bill of Rights and Duties", and did the Prime Minister recognise that to incorporate duties into a Bill of Rights was fraught to say the least, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister had always been of the view that the rights agenda needed to be balanced by a responsibilities agenda. But exactly what a Bill of Rights would be called was not really an issue for today.

Asked if the Prime Minister recognised that there were problems with this, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister recognised that as a general principal, alongside rights came responsibilities.

Put that Jack Straw seemed to be improvising in the Chamber, and asked why all of this was coming out today in what seemed to be a bit of a hurry with Jack Straw racing to the Chamber to tell everybody before the Prime Minister said it all outside of Parliament, the PMS replied that following the Prime Minister’s statement in July a whole series of processes were initiated, mostly taken forward by the Ministry of Justice. It seemed sensible 3 months or so down the line to give Parliament and others an update as to where we were. This was a multi track, quite diverse set of issues that Jack Straw brought together in a single statement. Those announcements were made to Parliament first. The Prime Minister’s speech did not include anything of a substantive nature that had not been announced by Jack Straw in Parliament. He was addressing a wider philosophical issue about the nature of liberty in the 21st century. But this was something that had been on the Prime Minister’s mind for some time.

Asked on the idea of criminals benefiting from their dastardly crimes, and would there be legal aid for people to pursue these criminals through the courts, the PMS replied that this would have to be considered by the Ministry of Justice as they take this forward. The general point was that there was a consultation initiated in 2006 on making sure that crime did not pay, and obviously the Prime Minister believed very strongly in the principal that criminals should not profit from their activities. There were a number of options put forward at that time. One of them was putting payments to criminals on a statutory basis, and the other was pursuing a route through the civil courts. As part of that consultation, one of the issues that came up was concern from various media organisations that should we criminalise in the way originally proposed, that could harm investigative journalism. Clearly we would not want to do that. Whilst sticking to the very strong principal that criminals should not profit, the Prime Minister said today that we believed the most appropriate way of dealing with this was through the civil courts.

Asked if that would include police payments, the PMS replied that we were mainly focussing on the media issues that had been raised, but the Ministry of Justice would have a definitive answer on that.

1 Comment »

“250 separate powers relating to the ability of various authorities to enter homes and premises”

Far too easy for officials to enter people’s homes.
Comment by John Cross — 12 Apr 2009 on 11:16 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.

» Thursday, October 25, 2007

Liberty Speech

1 Comment »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries