Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on Anti Terrorism Bill.
Anti Terrorism Bill
Asked what possibilities there might be of a compromise on the 90 day detention rule as set out in the Anti Terror Bill, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the Prime Minister had set out his view on this yesterday at the press conference. What the Prime Minister said was that the police had clearly and publicly set out in their paper they published last week the reasons why in a few circumstances, they needed to question people for longer. The Prime Minister believed the police’s case was well made and therefore, it was up to others to argue otherwise. The PMOS said that Ken Jones from ACPO had said in a radio interview this morning he supported the case for three months, and there would be others who would comment likewise. The key point was that whereas in organised crime cases, the police could allow events to unfold and gather evidence as they went along which they could use at a time deemed appropriate, in these cases, because they involved suicide bombers, the fear was that if events were allowed to unfold, there might be a situation where many people were killed or injured. The police could not take that risk. The PMOS said the problem was that the police had to spend a lot of time after the arrest gathering evidence in this country and overseas. The Prime Minister’s view was that this was a very strong argument that had been put forward by the police.
Put to the PMOS that in France, for example, suspected terrorists could in theory be held for up to four years, and was there a feeling that Britain was far behind the rest of the Western world in how we dealt with this problem, the PMOS replied that what the Prime Minister had said yesterday was that three months was already a compromise, but it was a period which the police believed to be the necessary time, as the police felt that the 14-day period was not long enough.
Asked if the Government was confident that the argument was so strongly in our favour, given that that the legal lobby was strong in the House of Lords, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had stressed, this was not a macho tug-of-war. Rather, this was about addressing a real need, as defined by the police, and supported by others, which was to address the real situation posed by different kinds of terrorism, and to address the different kinds of questions that it therefore posed to the security of this country.
Put to the PMOS that Charles Clarke appeared to be taking a different approach, and had seemed more open to compromise, but the time for seeking a consensus had now gone, as the Bill had been published, the PMOS said that we wanted to proceed on the basis of consensus if possible. That, however, was up to others. The key point was whether people could address the real need as outlined by the police, and the Prime Minister was as yet not persuaded that there was any argument that undermined the case put forward by the police.
Asked why the police could not charge people with a lesser offence, but still end up with the same result, the PMOS said that Ken Jones from ACPO had addressed that issue in his radio interview earlier today. Mr. Jones pointed out that if people were charged for a lesser offence, it increased the chances that they would be released on bail. That created a real problem for the police as it allowed those people access to other people involved in terrorist organisations.
Put to the PMOS that he had mentioned it was "up to others", and did that mean that everyone had to agree with the Government, the PMOS said: no. What the Prime Minister’s view was that people had to address the real need and the real argument and what we could not do was to "duck the question". That question was: if the police had to question people at an early stage in an investigation, because of the possibility of suicide bombers and the devastation that caused, therefore more time was needed for police to gather evidence. That was the crux of the argument.
Put to the PMOS that the Prime Minister had given a heavy hint that more measures would be taken towards ending organised crime, the PMOS replied that there were already proposals being put together for the reform of the Criminal Justice system. There was also further action being proposed against disorder that would be part of the Respect legislation that would come later in the year.
Asked if the Prime Minister thought that some of the judges needed "brow beating", the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had specifically said that he was not involved in brow beating. The PMOS said we all had to address the reality of the position on terrorism, of the effect of terrorism and the reality that the terrorism was of a different kind. Equally, what we also had to face was the reality of what disorderly behaviour could do to neighbourhoods.
Asked what was the difference in reality between knowing that an IRA bomber was about to set off a bomb killing people, versus the police arresting someone earlier and holding them whilst the police gathered more evidence, the PMOS said that the police had dealt with that issue in their paper. The basis argument was that there were many instances when the police did intervene to stop IRA bombs happening, but they were able to do so using surveillance and other methods over a prolonged period. The PMOS said that the problem with suicide bombers was that all it took was a split second for a suicide bomb to go off and kill many people. Therefore, it was a different kind of attack to an IRA attack where a bomb was placed and then people had a chance to get away. A suicide bomb happened instantly.
Asked what that had to do with charging a suspect, the PMOS said it was about a balance of risk. It was about how long people could be reasonably confident that something was not going to happen. Suicide bombs change the balance of risk and therefore, we had to intervene sooner. The PMOS recommended that people read the police’s paper.
delicious
digg
facebook
