Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: EU Energy Review, Iraq, Home Office/Criminal Records and Road Charging Petition.
EU Commission Strategic Energy Review
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the Prime Minister strongly welcomed the statement by the EU Commission today on its strategic Energy communication and climate change review. There was a direct line between today’s announcement and the Hampton Court summit which we held in October 2005, as well as Gleneagles in July 2005 and the joint letter that the Prime Minister had published with the Prime Minister of Holland at the Lahkti summit last Autumn. What we particularly welcomed was the emphasis that the EU Commission put on not just security of energy supply, but also, liberalisation of the European energy market, as well as the measures that it announced and supported on climate change and energy efficiency. The PMOS said that what this could lead to was further progress being made at the EU spring Council in March, with that leading onto G8+5 discussions of a post-2012 framework post-Kyoto in July. It was a very welcome development.
Iraq
Asked if the Prime Minister welcomed the briefing from the White House today that 22,000 extra troops would be sent to Iraq, and that the whole of the country could be under Iraqi control by the end of the year, the PMOS replied that he would prefer to wait until President Bush had spoken later tonight. The PMOS reiterated that we would wait for the American proposals, and he underlined that in terms of the situation in Baghdad and Basra, as we had said when we visited recently, the situation on the ground was very different in the two cities. Therefore, the policy in Basra would be dictated by the conditions on the ground in Basra.
Asked if there had been much consultation between the Prime Minister and President Bush on this, the PMOS said that in terms of policy development within Iraq, it was a matter that we continually discussed with all our coalition partners, as well as with the Iraqi Government. In terms of the proposals being put forward today, they were US proposals, and therefore, were a matter for the US Administration to address.
Asked whether the Prime Minister would make a statement following on from the President’s speech on our position on policy and troops, the PMOS said that the premise of the question ignored the fact that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary had all made very clear statements about our position in recent weeks and months. Therefore, today’s announcement was not something which we had been waiting for before we had set out our position. That position was that with Operation Sinbad underway, we were assessing how that would go, but increasingly, there was Iraqi control of areas of Basra, and an Iraqi lead on the security side. Therefore, that was part of an evolving picture, but it did depend on continuing assessments of the situation on the ground in Basra. It was a policy which would evolve as the conditions on the ground evolved.
Asked if we did not expect any significant shift in British policy following on from what we expected President Bush to say tonight, the PMOS replied that we would obviously want to see what President Bush announced and to see if that did have implications. However, in terms of the overall policy, that had been set out clearly by the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary.
Asked to explain about Operation Sinbad and was it the process of training up troops, the PMOS explained that it was the process of going through Basra, sector by sector, to get rid of the insurgency problems there. Increasingly, that was being led by the Iraqi security forces, and they then would take control of those areas, with us acting in a backup capacity. The PMOS said that Operation Sinbad was just over halfway through, but we would assess its overall impact as things continued.
Home Office/criminal records backlog
When asked if the Prime Minister believed that the Home Office was not fit for purpose, the PMOS answered that John Reid would be making a statement in the House at 1230, and people should wait for that statement and for Dr. Reid to set out the position. The problem had arisen because of the circumstances the PMOS had set out yesterday.
Asked if the Prime Minister was as surprised as John Reid appeared to have been about the situation, and also, was the Prime Minister surprised that John Reid was surprised, the PMOS said that John Reid would set out the situation. The Home Office had made it clear that Ministers, as far as we were aware, were not aware of the problem, and that was partly why there was an investigation going on in the Home Office. The PMOS said again that it was better that people waited for the Home Secretary’s statement at 1230.
Asked if Charles Clarke knew about it when he was Home Secretary, the PMOS replied that in terms of the overall policy of giving control to ACPO, that was something that Ministers were aware of. In terms of the particular problems about the backlog, the PMOS said that he was not aware that Ministers were aware of it. The PMOS explained that in November 2005, the JHA decided that we needed to rationalise across Europe the process of giving information on convictions, and this was an area where European co-operation made common sense. We were very much in favour of that. It was as a result of making ACPO the leading authority in the UK for this process that this problem had come to light. It was being addressed, but in the process of addressing it, we had uncovered the problem.
Asked if Ministers, the Home Secretary at the time or the Prime Minister were aware, or had it suddenly jumped up, the PMOS said again that people should wait until 1230. However, there was nothing to suggest that Ministers knew about the problem of the backlog. What they were aware of were the policy discussions about transferring authority to ACPO as part of the European co-operation, but that was policy, rather than the issue of the files.
Asked if the Home Office should be broken up into smaller units, the PMOS replied that as the Prime Minister had said, it was a question of turning over stones and discovering what lay underneath them. The important question was: were the problems being dealt with as they were discovered? Answer: yes, as with this case, we had taken action over a year ago. The issue was being dealt with, but of course it would be far better if the problems had not arisen in the first place. The PMOS said that the Home Office was a complex department, but there were synergies between the various elements of the department, and that was why the Home Office had a range of issues it had to deal with.
Put that there had been a series of issues, and yet no-one had taken responsibility for them, and no-one had resigned, despite John Reid’s suggestion that that may have to be the upshot, the PMOS replied that it was not for him to get into the management of the department. However, the important thing was to re-establish the facts.
Put that presumably, we would take a “dim view” of any Minister who was aware of this problem, but had not brought it to the Home Secretary’s attention, the PMOS said that the question was a hypothetical one, and there was no basis for him answering it. The journalist said that the PMOS had been extremely careful to say that he was not aware as far as he was aware, the PMOS replied that given that there was an investigation going on, people might think it wiser to wait for its outcome.
Asked if it was the government’s view that it was too early to make this statement and did it regret having to address the House halfway through the day, the PMOS replied that this was not the case. John Reid had held meetings with his officials and ACPO this morning to find out what the situation was, and what he would be doing was updating parliament on his understanding of the situation. There had been situations in the past, both in the Home Office and elsewhere, where parliament had been updated on the state of knowledge at a certain point, and then updated at a later time when that knowledge was more complete. Given the public concern it was important that the government provided an update in this case.
Put to him that some well informed people, including former Ministers, had said that this was known about last year, that the then Home Secretary Charles Clarke did know about this, and did this mean that he had failed to tell the Prime Minister, the PMOS replied that he was not aware of anything that suggested that Ministers were aware.
Put to him that it was difficult to understand how John Reid, having arrived at the Home Office, having said the department was dysfunctional and having set out what he was going do, was still not told by officials about such a significant failure, the PMOS replied that the person best able to reflect and communicate that point would be standing up in the House at 12:30, and no doubt he would do so in his own inimitable style.
Asked to confirm that the agency of the Home Office that was responsible for this was the UK Central Authority for Mutual Legal Assistance, the PMOS replied that he was deeply impressed but he did not have an answer to this and pointed the CH4 journalist to the Home Office.
Road Charging Petition
Asked what happens to petitions on the Downing Street website, the PMOS replied that they became part of the policy process and part of the overall context in which decisions were taken. He added that they were a welcome addition to the ability of citizens to communicate directly with government. There was no axiomatic process in which a petition would be submitted and the government then agreed, that was not the way it worked.
Asked if the government accepted that it was losing the argument on road pricing, the PMOS replied that the government accepted that there was an argument that had to be made on road pricing. The consequences of doing nothing would lead to an increase in congestion of 25% in less than a decade. We were working with 10 local areas as they developed proposals for local road pricing schemes, that would be a pilot, but this was a process that would take some time. They had been asked to come back with proposals by next July, but there would then be a further process of consultation beyond that. It was an issue where we were working with local authorities to improve the flow of traffic, working to provide extra roads, and working on railways for example, but there was still a problem with congestion. Therefore that was why we were looking at his area.
Asked if the Prime Minister was dismayed at the scale of the petition, the PMOS replied that people did feel strongly about this issue, but feeling strongly was not a substitute for coming up with practical proposals. It was the duty of government to come up with practical proposals, and to explain to people why the proposals were necessary, and to work through how they might be carried out. This was precisely why we were talking to the 10 local areas about proposals for pilot schemes.
Asked if there was a secret threshold of signatures that would change government policy, the PMOS replied that he was not aware of one. It was not a surprise that people felt strongly on this. It did not mean that we would stop thinking of ways to deal with this issue. The 25% figure on congestion told everyone all that they needed to know about why we needed to do something about this.
Asked if the Prime Minister had seen this petition, and asked to clarify what was meant by the previous answer that petitions formed part of the overall context in which decisions were taken and whether that was just code for junked, the PMOS replied that the BBC had an amazing ability to call black white. He took this opportunity to invite the BBC to do a little sum of the amount of coverage it devoted to pushing the Prime Minister to talk about the manner of Saddam’s execution, and then the number of seconds devoted to what the Prime Minister had actually said on the matter on the 10pm news last night. The BBC journalist replied that they were very concerned that they did not crowd out more important news items. The PMOS replied that he had succeeded admirably in at least one of his criteria, adding that it did not crowd out anything and did not even include the full quote. To answer his question, the PMOS replied that people’s strong views on this matter were being taken fully into account. But this was not a substitute for actually having to do the work to come up with the solution. Therefore this was precisely why we were doing the hard work of working with the 10 local areas to come up with practical proposals. We would then look at how they might or might not be implemented and how they then fitted in with the overall mix of what we were doing on transport. Doing nothing was not an option. Doing nothing would mean that in ten years time congestion would be 25% worse.
Asked if there were any examples of Downing Street website petitions that had changed government policy, the PMOS replied that the website petition process had only recently begun.
Asked if any policy proposals had come out of the Big Conversation, the PMOS replied that this was a Labour Party event and referred the journalist to the Labour Party.
Asked if the Prime Minister had ever been updated on the numbers in this petition before the story had broken, adding that he welcomed the discussion of processology on this occasion, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister, as he had previously confessed, was more of an old fashioned paper man than he was a computer wizard. But he was kept updated on the e-petitions on a regular basis.
delicious
digg
facebook
