UK Parliament / Open data

Engagements

Prime Minister's question asked in the House of Commons, by Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative). It was answered on Wednesday, 9 November 2005 on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Question

Let me repeat that we all accept that we face a new threat of terrorism and that we all want to take effective action against that threat. Let me remind the Prime Minister of what he said in the past in relation to anti-terrorism issues. He said:"““The view of the police must be taken into account, but . . . the objections received from a very broad range of opinion on these proposals should be properly tested.””—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 302–3.]" And what we seek to do—this ought to be capable of cool and rational debate—is to test the extent to which the 90-day proposal can be justified. So let me ask the Prime Minister this specific question: can he identify a single case in which it has taken the police 90 days after arresting a suspect to find evidence sufficient to charge that person with a terrorist offence?

Answer

I really have to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I find it quite extraordinary that he seeks to suggest that there is somehow no evidence that the police are putting forward for the case that they are making. They have put forward detailed reasons as to why they believe these powers to be necessary. For example, just this last weekend, we arrested people on a terrorist operation. There were 750 gigabytes of data—that is 66,000 ft-worth of data—that would be printed out and have to be investigated. Just with the events of 7 July, there are two warehouse-fulls of exhibits. We know that each of these terrorist operations has links to abroad. We know, for example, that it took two weeks, just in respect of the bomb factories in Leeds, to make them safe. That is what the police have set out time and again. That is why it is important that they have this power, as they say, to make our country safer, and they have given details of why they say that these powers are necessary. Yes, it is true that we have agreed a sunset clause. Why? Because it is important. If people have these concerns, and I understand them, let us test it over the year. Let us see if the worries that people have are justified, or not. That is a reasonable thing to put forward. We have an independent review of the system—Lord Carlile will also report on it—but let us send out a signal from the House that, when it comes to defeating terrorism, we are going to give the police the powers that they need and back them.

About this oral question

Reference

439 c297-8 

Session

2005-06

Oral question type

Supplementary

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Deposited Paper DEP 05/1435
Monday, 14 November 2005
Deposited papers
House of Commons

Subjects

Back to top