Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Cancelled Operations and Anti Terror Legislation.
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) told journalists that the Prime Minister would attend the Specialist Schools reception this evening at the Guildhall. Ruth Kelly and the Lord Mayor would also be attending.
Cancelled Operations
Asked if the Prime Minister had had any further investigations raised into the case raised by Michael Howard at PMQs regarding cancelled operations, the PMOS said it was better that individual local cases were dealt with at local level. The PMOS said it was important to note that the proportion of cancelled operations had varied very little over the years. As a proportion of the total number of cancelled operation in 1996/7 was 1.1%, and in 2003/4 it was 1.2%. In 2001/2, there had been a fluctuation, where it rose to 1.5%. However, in April 2002, the Government took action, by guaranteeing that patients whose surgery had been cancelled on the day would be admitted within 28 days. This now seemed to be working, as figures taken from the first half of 2004/5 showed that 90% of patients whose surgery had been cancelled were being re-admitted within the 28-day period. In terms of absolute numbers, there had been an increase, but that was inevitable as there had been 450,000 this year more operations than there were in 1997.
Put to him that 1.1% to 1.2% was still an increase that was still "hundreds if not thousands of cancelled operations" that were still a problem, the PMOS said that no-one was pretending it was not an issue. It was an issue that should be kept in perspective in terms of a health service which was doing the vast number of operations that it was doing, and in which there had been an increase of nearly half a million extra operations being done. To define a health service solely by the number of cancelled operations was to ignore the fact that there was a health service where there were many more operations being done.
Anti Terror Legislation
Asked if there had been any further clarification since this morning regarding the "Sunset Clause", the PMOS said the Prime Minister had received sufficient clarification to come to the view that he did. That view was that in the cases where we had to derogate from the ECHR (ie house arrest), that derogation had to be reviewed automatically once a year. In the other cases, not only did people have the right of appeal against it, but also the Home Secretary had to make three-monthly reports to Parliament. There was, therefore, already a review mechanism built in. The PMOS said the bottom line was that we did believe that we did have to respond to two things. Firstly, the need that was spelt out by the police and security services, and secondly the need to address the issue spelt out by the House of Lords’ judgment.
Asked for clarification on the Prime Minister’s comments that the derogation order had to be "reviewed and renewed", the PMOS replied that the Bill required the Home Secretary to make a new order each year stipulating he believed the derogation remained necessary. Such an order would be subject to debate and affirmative resolution by both Houses. If not affirmed, any derogation would therefore lapse.
Asked if the Government was in danger of being responsible for there being no anti terrorist legislation in two weeks, the PMOS said he was not going to get into the party political aspects, for obvious reasons. In terms of the general approach, the Government was putting forward measures which it believed met the need that the police and the security services say was necessary to address. Regarding that need, what was required was something that would continue into the medium term, and not just this week or this month. Built into that was a mechanism that would keep the practices happening under review. Therefore, in terms of meeting the essential point, which was that we monitored and gave people the opportunity to debate the operation of these control orders, that was in place. The Government, therefore, felt it was meeting the need. The option the Prime Minister spelt out today was either to go down that route, or to continue with the situation where there were people detained, even though the House of Lords had ruled against it.
Asked if it was explicit, and people wanted it, why did the Government not just agree to the "Sunset Clause", the PMOS replied that a situation was needed where there was no doubt about the signal that was sent out to suspects and terrorists of the determination of this country to act. Therefore, it was not only about sending a signal to the suspects, but also of the Government’s determination and giving the authorities the certainty that the Government was going to "stick at the task" of helping them in the fight against terrorism. The Government’s view was it had to not only give the security services and the police the powers that were needed to meet the threat. It should do so in an unequivocal way.
Put to him that would it not be more unequivocal to have a consensus, the PMOS said it depended whether that consensus would meet the level of threat. It also depended on whether it met the need defined by the police and security services.
delicious
digg
facebook
