Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Spokesman on: Counter Terrorism, Corporate Manslaughter, Avian Flu, ID Cards and Police Inquiry
Counter Terrorism
Asked to explain the Prime Minister’s thinking on the 28 days debate, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) replied that as John Reid had said at Cabinet last Thursday, the police had asked us to look again at the issue. This was because their experience in the latest case in August meant that they used up all 28 days available for questioning. What John Reid had suggested, and the Cabinet had agreed, was that we try and achieve a consensus between the police, the Government and the opposition on the best way forward. We had not said what we thought the outcome of this should be. The Government’s view at the time of the legislation was that we needed more than 28 days, but Parliament had reached another decision. Since then however, the police had more experience in which to make a judgement, and others had also revisited their views on this.
Asked if the Prime Minister thought that 90 days would be the easiest option, the PMOS replied that he had not changed his view of what was the best option from last time. But he did recognise that Parliament had reached a different decision. However, this was not a matter of theology. This was a matter of the practicalities of dealing with the reality of the terrorist threat today. The threat was now more complex, for example there were now different languages involved, and because of these complexities more time was needed. Unfortunately police experience to date suggested that was true.
Asked to expand on what was meant by "others" in his previous answer, the PMOS replied that the Home Affairs Select Committee published a report last year in which its Chairman had said it had thought again about 28 days. The police also had the experience of the August incident that took up every single one of the 28 days. The question was whether it was best to wait until there was a case that demanded more than 28 days and then legislate, or recognise that this would only be a matter of time and legislate in advance.
Put to him that the Attorney General had said in November that he hadn’t seen any evidence to justify an increase of beyond 28 days, and was it the case that he and everybody else would now be asked to go away and reassess the evidence that had risen since then, the PMOS replied that different people looked at this issue from different perspectives, we had said this at the time of the last debate. The reality was that police experience showed that these cases were increasingly complex and there was a danger of dealing with multiple cases at any one time. Therefore we had to deal with the overall consensus. This should be a debate about the reality, not the theology.
Asked if police could currently apply for an extension after 28 days if they were still not satisfied, the PMOS replied that his understanding at this stage was that they could not.
Asked if the Government had a figure in mind for the number of days, the PMOS replied that the Government did not. This had never been a matter of getting on a hook about a particular timescale. It was about trying to give the police enough time to carry out their operations. People sometimes talked about the 28 days as if it had no judicial oversight, but it did - it had a weekly oversight. We were trying to respond to the reality of what the police did believe was a problem.
Asked how quickly the Government wanted to move on this issue, bearing in mind the ongoing inquiry in Birmingham, the PMOS replied that there was a tension between the urgency of moving against a background while terrorism was a reality, but also trying to achieve a consensus on a national level. Obviously the sooner we moved the better.
Corporate Manslaughter
Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with Baroness Scotland about axing the Corporate Manslaughter Bill, the PMOS replied that it would be better to wait for the House of Lords to reach a decision, and then respond.
Avian Flu
Asked if the Prime Minister was still happy to eat poultry products himself, the PMOS replied that yes, the Prime Minister was.
ID Cards
Put to him that the Conservatives had written to Gus O’Donnell today to raise the issue of contractors who may become involved in bidding for the ID card contract, and did the Prime Minister feel that by doing this they were delaying the whole process by at least 2 years and possibly until after a General Election, the PMOS replied that he would not be getting into party political matters. All he would say was that the Prime Minister believed that every time the debate about ID cards moved, it moved to underscore the value of having proof of identity. Put to him that this was a Government matter, not a party political matter, the PMOS replied that it seemed that the reporter was asking him to take a view on who would win the next General Election, nothing could be more of a political matter than that!
Police Inquiry
Asked if there had been any updates in the inquiry since this morning, the PMOS replied that there had not, although he noted that the Crown Prosecution Service had put out a statement denying that they were responsible for any leakages on the matter.
Asked if he believed the Crown Prosecution Service, the PMOS replied that this was a scandalous question! And the Guardian could stand up in court and defend itself!
Asked if the Prime Minister had had any contact with the police, the PMOS replied that the answer had not changed since this morning. He had asked around Downing Street and "elsewhere" and the answer was that we had had no contact about a possible third interview. The Lobby could draw their own conclusions from that.
delicious
digg
facebook
