Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Cabinet, Anti Terror Legislation, Attorney General, School Uniform, Cancelled Operations and Taoiseach.
Cabinet
Asked what had been discussed at Cabinet, the PMOS told journalists that Charles Clarke had updated Cabinet on the progress of the Anti Terror Bill. The Prime Minister re-iterated his view that it was a choice between on the one hand, being in a situation where the only power available to police was to monitor people with all the risks that involved or, on the other hand, having to prosecute them in a situation where it was not always possible to use intelligence to do so. Therefore both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary re-iterated that the Bill struck the correct balance in what were, as everyone admitted, difficult circumstances.
The PMOS said that Jack Straw also gave a summary of the Palestinian meeting earlier in the week. The Foreign Secretary re-iterated his view, which was also echoed by Hilary Benn, that what was impressive about the meeting was not only the universal consensus that there was now an opportunity to move forward, but also, a recognition that the process of elections in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine had had a major impact in the regions in a positive way. People were, in a genuine way, trying to move the situation forward.
Asked if the Foreign Secretary had said anything about Lebanon, the PMOS replied that he had referred to the pressure for Syria to comply with UN resolutions, and how that was being reflected in popular opinion on the street.
Asked if the Health Secretary had spoken in Cabinet, the PMOS said he had, but not on the subject that he suspected the journalist was asking about.
Asked if anyone had raised fears that the Anti Terror Bill would fall, the PMOS said there was a universal determination that the Bill should be passed.
Asked if the Prime Minister had any plans to visit Warrington, the PMOS said the Prime Minister was not planning to visit. However, the Health Secretary was intending to be in Warrington for a peace event there connected with the Parry Centre.
Asked if Dr. Reid was planning to visit Mrs Dickson, the PMOS said he did not know; it was a matter for the Department of Health.
Anti Terror Legislation
Asked if the Anti Terror Bill was a good example for this country to help promote democracy in the Middle East, the PMOS said that democracy depended on many things. Part of what it depended on was if there was intelligence that someone was trying to destroy democracy by killing thousands of people, then there was the ability to defend democracy. There was no easy way to strike that balance, but if in a very few exceptional cases, the only way to do so was through the powers that have been outlined that remained accountable to Parliament, which was the fount of democracy in this country, then the Government believed that was justified in such rare occasions. The alternative was to place the security forces and the police in a situation in which they would not be able to defend democracy, and if there was an atrocity where thousands of people were killed, the Government did not believe that the public would understand why we did not act.
Put to him that the powers in the Middle East would look to these new powers as a reason why they should not reform, the PMOS said what was important was to recognise the very small number of cases in which these powers would be used. The fact that the Home Secretary was accountable to Parliament, and there was a judicial input and oversight into the use of the powers. All those safeguards were there. Equally what could not be dismissed was the choice between having these powers, difficult thought they may be, and protecting society, or not having the powers, and therefore running the risk of major terrorist incidents where thousands of people died. That was the choice that the Prime Minister believed the public rightly expected the Government to act upon.
Asked if there would be any more compromises on the details of the Bill, the PMOS repeated what he had said yesterday which was the Home Secretary believed he had stuck the right balance.
Put to him that the trial of the "second shoe bomber" proved that the current laws were not quite inadequate, the PMOS said no, what the trial showed was that in the cases where there was evidence, then people could act. If there was not evidence, but there was intelligence about a potential threat, then what happened? Did you not act, thus allowing someone to kill thousands of people, or was the intelligence available used. That was the core of the issue.
Put to him that given the importance the Prime Minister had attached to getting the Bill through, why had he not taken up the Conservative’s proposal to putting it on a temporary basis, the PMOS said he would not get involved in the party political aspect of it. The PMOS said, as he had done yesterday, that in the cases where we would have to derogate from the ECHR, there was already an annual review built into the legislation. The Home Secretary would have to return to Parliament to get the derogation renewed on an annual basis. Therefore, there already was a "Sunset clause" built in. The PMOS also pointed out that regarding the cases that did not need derogating, there was a process of three monthly reports to Parliament that were also already built in to the legislation. If, therefore, the proposal was one about having a review mechanism, then it was already in the legislation. If, however, the proposal was that we should in some way send a signal that we were not clear about whether the legislation was necessary or not, the Government believed that was the wrong message to send to both the terrorists as it showed we were not serious. It was also the wrong message to send to the police and security services as they wanted the certainty tat they would have powers, not just in the next few weeks and months, but in the medium term to deal with this problem.
Asked where the distinction was drawn between evidence and intelligence, the PMOS explained that evidence was material that was able to be examined in court. Intelligence was material that was not able to be revealed in court because of its nature, and because of the danger that in revealing it, the source of the material would be made clear.
Put to him that intelligence was evidence that the Government did not wish to be used, the PMOS said that it was not that we did not want it to be used, but rather the consequences of doing so would be to reveal the sources of that intelligence which would inevitably put the country’s security at risk.
Asked if that meant evidence that had been gathered by intelligence, or suppositions drawn, the PMOS replied that intelligence could be of different kinds. If it was intelligence about a potential threat that would result in people being killed, then it was material that had to be acted upon.
Asked if the dossier regarding the war on Iraq was intelligence or evidence, the PMOS said that what the intelligence was correct about was the intention of Saddam Hussein to continue to develop weapons of mass destruction once the sanctions were withdrawn.
Attorney General
Asked if the Attorney General had provided a formal opinion to the Government that the rest of the Bill was "ok" as far as the ECHR was concerned, and it was only those parts mentioned that needed derogation, the PMOS said the Bill was based on sound legal analysis, but as the journalist knew, we did not go into the detail of internal Governmental discussions.
School Uniform
Asked if the Government was going to clarify to schools about what children could wear, the PMOS said that was a matter for the DFES.
Cancelled Operations
Asked if the Margaret Dickson case should be dealt with on an individual basis, the PMOS said, as he had briefed yesterday, that it was the Government’s view that it was wrong to elevate one case into a generalisation about the health service. In terms of the cancellation of operation, he repeated that the percentage of cancelled operations as a proportion of the overall number of operations carried out by the health service each year had not varied much. It went from 1.2% in 1996/7 to the same figure in 2003/4, with an increase to 1.5%. There was then action taken to reduce the figure. What had happened was that there was 450,000 more operations per year then there were in 1997. Therefore, in terms of numbers, it was inevitable that there would be more cancelled operations. As a proportion, however, it remained the same.
Taoiseach
Asked if the Prime Minister was still meeting Bertie Ahern today, the PMOS confirmed that he was. It would be a chance to update for the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to update each other on where things were at the moment.
delicious
digg
facebook
