Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: 2012 Olympics, Adoption laws, Inheritance tax, Home Office and Afghanistan
2012 Olympics
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) reported that the ODA sustainability report showed how the 2012 Games could set new standards for sustainability. Measures included a low waste and low carbon transport system, a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions, at least 20% of materials used in permanent venues being recycled, and a reduction of waste with 90% of materials removed from the site after the Games being recycled. There would also be an emphasis on sustainability in a different sense in that the aim was to leave a legacy, not just for 2012, but for years afterwards. The legacy would include the largest urban park in Europe for 150 years; 3,850 new homes created from the athletes’ village, part of the 9,000 new homes in the Olympic park after the games, many for key workers; and 5 new sports facilities in the park.
Asked about concerns over funding the Games and how cost overruns would be met, the PMOS replied that first and foremost there were discussions going on between DCMS and the Treasury and we should not get in the way of those. Secondly, what needed to be recognised was the progress that had been made to date. In terms of financial planning we were ahead of Sydney who submitted their budget 2 years before the Games; and ahead of Beijing who waited until 4 years before the Games to publish theirs. It needed to be recognised that part of what made our bid different was the emphasis that we had put on the legacy. Today people would see the "before" picture of what this area is like now, it was not a pretty picture. What would be left for years and decades after the Olympics and what we were aiming for, was a legacy of homes and facilities and a regeneration of a poor part of London which people would then be able to enjoy for generations after the Games.
Put to him that all this sounded very similar to what the Government said ahead of the Millennium Dome being built, the PMOS replied that he disagreed. The Dome was the Dome and the Olympics were completely different. In terms of the degree of planning, the IOC had been very complimentary about where it thought London was on the planning graph and on getting to grips with the issue. It recognised that we were much further ahead than other cities had been at this stage. We were being ambitious because we were trying to turn around a poor part of London and turn it in to something that would last for generations. There was nothing wrong with that ambition, but equally we did need to go through the processes of delivering it. This was precisely why we were facing up to the issues now rather than at a later stage in the process.
Adoption Laws
Asked if the Prime Minister was sympathetic to the concerns of Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, the PMOS replied that as he had said yesterday, this was an issue with sensitivities on all sides and the Prime Minister recognised that. This was why it was worth having discussions in Government before coming to a decision. The key point to remember in all of this was the interests of the children concerned. Discussions would be held within Government and then an announcement would be made on the way forward.
Asked if there was a timetable, the PMOS replied that there were active discussions going on within Government. This was not a straightforward black and white issue, this was an issue in which there were sensitivities on all sides and they had to be respected. Equally we had to try and find a way forward.
Asked if the Prime Minister had made up his own mind, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister had not reached a decision yet. This was not clear-cut or straightforward, there were sensitivities. The Cardinal’s letter had illustrated the sensitivities on one side, there were sensitivities on the other side as well. We had to be aware of all of these and plot a way through which recognised above all the interests of the children.
Put to him that in his letter, the Cardinal had said that their adoption agencies may have to be closed down, and did this not smack of blackmail, the PMOS replied that there were concerns on both sides of this issue. What we wanted to do was find a way through that was best for the people who were most directly affected, the children. Again there were arguments on both sides that had to be recognised. We would try to find a way through that would benefit all those concerned.
Inheritance Tax
Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned by the big increase in the number of families facing Inheritance Tax, the PMOS replied that tax matters were a matter for the Chancellor.
Home Office
Asked for an update on the Home Office reorganisation plan in light of concerns raised by Margaret Beckett and Ruth Kelly, the PMOS replied that the question was almost Gibbonesque in its quality of building in assumptions that the journalist hoped he would agree with. As he had said yesterday, John Reid had put forward a serious suggestion based on the new terrorist threat that we faced. However this was a matter that needed to be discussed, as there were implications across Government. Serious consideration needed to be given to the matter and discussions had to be had.
Asked if representations had been made by MI6 or GCHQ, the PMOS replied that he was not getting into the processology of discussions within government. What was important was to deal with the substance. There was now a new terrorist threat, the complexity of which was different and something that other countries were having to grapple with as well. The important thing was to consider the argument in the round and then reach a decision.
Afghanistan
Asked if there would be an announcement this week on troop rotation in Afghanistan, the PMOS replied that he was not expecting anything at this stage.
delicious
digg
facebook
