Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: anti-terror legislation, the Taioseach, stop and search, BBC charter and UN report.
Anti-terror legislation
Asked what the Prime Minister’s current thinking was on the terror legislation in the Lords and whether he was opened minded about the sunset clause the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary were both keen for a clarification on what was being suggested. However in general terms the bottom line remained the same, which was the government believed these powers were what was necessary to meet the needs identified by the police and the security services. Therefore the government remained determined to get that on the statute book. Asked if the only way to get it on the statute book was to have it time limited and whether that would be considered the PMOS said that the question started with if and he did not answer hypothetical questions. The Government believed what it was proposing was necessary and therefore we continued to want to get that on the statute book. Asked if the position was that Government had received the amendments but had not yet had the time to look over them the PMOS said there remained some confusion over whether what was being proposed was just a sunset clause or if it came with other amendments. The Government was trying to clear up the position. Asked if the government had a principled objection to a sunset clause the PMOS said that what we believed was that the powers were what was necessary and they were necessary for not just this week or next but for the foreseeable future. He was not going to comment on particular proposals until it was clear on what was being proposed but that was the basic starting point of where we were coming from. In response to further questions the PMOS said that the government was waiting for further clarification on what it was that was being proposed and as such he could not give a signal on the opposition’s proposal until that clarification had been made.
Asked if the Prime Minister or Home Secretary had asked for them to come in to explain it the PMOS said that the Home Secretary’s position was that these matters were best dealt with through the usual channels rather than through the media spotlight. People should wait to see what emerged. Asked if the review mechanism had been considered as part of how the bill would be considered generally the PMOS said that in terms of review mechanisms it was sensible to review legislation and its impact on a regular basis and the examples of one year and five years in the current anti terror legislation were substantial periods.
Asked how the Prime Minister responded to the accusation that he paid too little attention to parliament and the anti terror legislation was an example of how they had responded too late to cross party concerns the PMOS said that if you actually did an analysis of how many debates the Prime Minister had participated in it was in fact far more than any of his predecessors. In terms of the terrorism bill people did feel strongly about it one way or another but the Prime Minister had set out at PMQs his view that it was necessary. If other parties choose to adopt a different view that was a matter for them.
Taoiseach
Asked if the Prime Minister would be meeting the Taoiseach the PMOS said that he believed the Taoiseach was in London tomorrow to open the RTE offices and given the current situation it was sensible and welcome for them use the opportunity to meet.
Stop and search
Asked if the Prime Minister was happy with the message given out to British Muslims yesterday by Hazel Blears the PMOS said that you had to be clear about what it was that Hazel Blears had been saying which was that she understood if there was a perception that stop and search powers were aimed at one particular community but that was not what was happening. What was happening was that those powers were aimed at those who were suspected of carrying out or planning certain activity. They may happen to come from a particular community but it was not a police policy to aim those powers at a particular community. Therefore it was important that people looked at what Hazel Blears had said in the right context and perspective.
Asked when the Prime Minister referred to several hundred potential Islamists engaged in terrorism whether it was right to assume that the majority were not British citizens the PMOS said that was not right and if you considered the case earlier in the week that would indicate that you should not make that generalisation, but he would not get into the detail of who those people were. As he said yesterday what the Prime Minister was reflecting was a group of people who were a concern to the police and the security services but with varying degrees of concern. Therefore he was simply alerting people to the fact and the fact of why we all had to be alert.
BBC charter
Asked if the Government review proved that they were not vindictive the PMOS said that the charter process was a process that would go forward on its own merits and the debate behind the charter was one that had proponents and people who took different positions on those merits.
UN report
Asked by the Daily Mail if there would be a Government drugs strategy in light of the UN Report the PMOS said that no doubt the correspondent’s paper would want to recognise that the UN report also praised this Government’s approach. This was not an area where there could be complacency in any way. There were 3 strands to this, firstly in Afghanistan; we were the lead country in the counter-narcotics approach. Here the important point was that President Karzai had identified that this was a priority. His government had set out a five-point plan to counter narcotics, he had engaged with local governors to see that plan implemented and the international community was supporting him in doing that. This was beginning to take effect, not just with eradication programmes but also with replacement economy programmes and so on. Secondly, here, with the drugs bill we had given the police new powers and also put in place compulsory testing and so on. So we were addressing both sides of the coin here. Thirdly, in relation to EU and EU enlargement the fact was that there was always a vulnerability in terms of accession countries but now that they had joined the EU they had to bring up to standard their police and customs activity against drugs and organised crime. So across the three areas nobody was claiming that the problem was solved, there was still much to do but we had reason to believe that progress could be made in the medium term.
delicious
digg
facebook
