Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Anti Terror Legislation, Legality of War and Cannabis.
Anti Terror Legislation
Asked to clarify the timescale under which the Home Secretary envisaged the Belmarsh people being released if the Bill was not passed, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that as he had said all week, he was not going to get involved in individual cases. The point that the Home Secretary was making this morning during his interview was that if Part Four was simply renewed, as suggested, then it would be open to challenge by the courts. Therefore the decision for release would be one for the courts, and not one that would be taken by the Home Secretary with regards to national security, and that was the key point. The PMOS said that in terms of what happened this week, that depended on the legislation and its progress.
Asked to clarify that the Home Secretary was not saying that on Friday morning, the Belmarsh people would be released, the PMOS said that was the understanding, but people should check with the Home Office.
Asked if the Prime Minister would take part in voting on the Bill, the PMOS said it would be better to wait and see. The Government was taking this issue very seriously, and as Charles Clarke suggested this morning, that we were going to address the question of judicial input in such a way that would met people’s concerns. We also believed there was a fundamental point about national security, and the Government was taking it in that light.
Asked if the post amendment bill was not renewed each year, it would lapse immediately, the PMOS said: yes.
Asked to recall if any other Prevention of Terror Acts had changed upon their renewal process, the PMOS replied that the Prevention of Terrorism legislation did change from time to time in the light of experience. The PMOS said he was not able to confirm whether or not that was part of the annual renewal process or not.
Asked whether it would be the domestic or European court that would make the decision on release if Part Four was renewed, the PMOS said it could be either, but it would be up to the lawyers for the people concerned to take the cases to whatever court they thought appropriate.
Asked if therefore the Part Four renewal was still a possibility, the PMOS replied that our belief was that the right thing to do was to pass the legislation. That was what the Government was going to try and do.
Asked again about the annual review, and whether there was no option to change it in any way, but rather "just have the same thing", the PMOS said that a review meant that people reported to Parliament on its operation, and if there was a strong enough consensus that things needed to be changed, then that could be part of a review process. However, that was entirely a matter for Parliament. However, the important thing was that Parliament had an input into the process, and that had been clarified.
Put to the PMOS again that in absence of a new Bill, the Belmarsh detainees would have to be released, the PMOS said again that it was a matter for the lawyers to challenge in the courts. It was right that we publicised our strong belief that it could result in people being released.
Asked why the lawyers were not acting now, and what difference was there post Friday, as it was the same powers, people and lawyers involved, the PMOS replied that he was not a lawyer, and was not going to speak for the lawyers of the Belmarsh detainees. The situation at the moment was that it was accepted that the Government was trying to introduce legislation to deal with the House of Lords’ point. If it came to the point where the Government was seen to be acting in defiance of the House of Lord’s judgment, that would be differently viewed by the courts.
Asked that if the lawyers were to ask for release in Monday of the detainees, it would be some time before they were actually released, the PMOS told journalists what the Home Secretary had said this morning. Charles Clarke had said what needed to be taken into account were the actions of the courts towards bail in the light of the fact that we would be defying the House of Lord’s judgement. That was something that could not be guaranteed.
Asked if the Belmarsh detainees were being held under the Immigration Law or the Anti-Terrorism law, the PMOS said the journalist should check with the Home Office.
Legality of War
Asked if the Government had any response to the charge that there was a "clear breach" of the Ministerial Code under Section Two that a full explanation of any legal advice should be attached to a written answer given to a Cabinet Minister, the PMOS said that there was a misunderstanding about what actually happened. The Attorney General had briefed his Cabinet colleagues orally, and answered questions orally, and there was not a written memorandum sent round. Therefore the Ministerial Code did not apply in the way that was being suggested.
Put to him that at the Cabinet meeting, as Clare Short had claimed, everyone was given a two page Parliamentary answer that had summarised the legal advice, the PMOS replied that the written answer was not a summary, but rather, was the Attorney General’s view. The PMOS used the example of a similar situation where the Lord Chancellor had given his explanation of his advice on the civil marriage, but not a summary, however.
Put to him that he was "splitting hairs" as the copy of the answer put round at Cabinet was a paper as defined by the Ministerial Code, the PMOS said it was not. There was a clear distinction made by lawyers between an expression of views and an explanation, and a summary of legal advice.
Asked for an explanation that during a written answer last November, the Attorney General had said in the House of Lords that the written answer was "a summary" of his legal opinion, the PMOS said he was not aware of the comments and would need to look into it.
Asked if there was "official written record" of the Attorney General’s advice to the Government, the PMOS replied that the Attorney General had given his advice in the normal way. Normal conventions applied to that advice, but the PMOS was not going to discuss how the advice was given.
Put to him that although it was not a written document, presumably it would have been minuted, the PMOS said it was not equivalent to a summary or memorandum.
Asked if something would ever be available, perhaps under the Thirty Year Rule, the PMOS replied the usual convention applied to the Attorney General’s advice, which were that we did not disclose it.
Asked to clarify again that the "paper" was in fact a written answer, and therefore not subject to minuting, did that not breach the "spirit" of the Ministerial Code, the PMOS said: no, it did not. The Cabinet had discussed Iraq 24 times in the year before the conflict. It was a not matter, therefore, that had not been the subject of discussion.
Cannabis
Put to him that the Foreign Secretary "seemed to have said" that the Government was going to rethink the cannabis laws, the PMOS said the Foreign Office had made clear that what Jack Straw had meant was this kind of legislation was always under review, as we had said at the time.
delicious
digg
facebook
