Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Community Cohesion, NSPCC, Health Service Reconfiguration, 6 Party Talks, Efficiency Gains, Downing Street Snowman and Police Inquiry
Community Cohesion
Asked if Ruth Kelly had discussed with Cabinet the claim that Britain was a police state for Muslims, the PMOS replied that the issue was discussed and the following points were made:
- In a police state, a court would not have been able to release someone who was being questioned by the police.
- In a police state, that person would not then be able to go on national airwaves and be interviewed.
- Equally however, in a free society the police had an absolute duty and responsibility to act on information, if by doing so they believed that they were protecting society from a threat.
That was the balance that we had to achieve in a democratic society. To call a process that resulted in that sequence a "police state" was categorically wrong.
Asked if these comments did not highlight exactly the sensitivities in Muslim communities that Ruth Kelly was trying to address, the PMOS replied that what community representatives from that community had said themselves, was that they equally recognised the difficult job that the police had to do in these circumstances. What did not help were gross caricatures of the political process in this country. We did have a court system that oversaw the work of the police. For example, taking the issue of detention for 28 days, there was a weekly judicial oversight process. We had to reject these simplistic caricatures in the strongest way possible.
Asked if the Prime Minister had any concern that a lot of people initially arrested both in the Birmingham and Forest Gate cases, were later released without charge, the PMOS replied that looking at the overall way in which any police investigation was carried out, there was the same set of processes. The issue was not whether people were arrested and then released, the issue was the oversight that was in place to ensure that people were treated in the proper way.
Put to him that it was troubling to someone who had been arrested and then released, who on release discovered that their caricature had to some extent been traduced for the last week by leaks, the PMOS replied by asking the journalist where these leaks came from. People should identify where the leaks came from as they were not in any way approved by Government. On the day of the operation, both the Home Secretary and the Attorney General went on the record to say that the media should avoid unhelpful speculation. He had read that out at Lobby.
Asked that since the Government did not approve these leaks, was there to be a formal investigation into the way in which police information came out, the PMOS replied that it was for the police to regulate themselves, and it was not for him to comment on that. It was important that on this occasion, the Home Secretary and the Attorney General responded to the genuine concern that speculation could either inhibit the investigation, or lead to problems further down the road if these cases went to court. That was why they issued the statement on the day.
Asked if he was calling on journalists to reveal their sources, the PMOS replied that he had seen what he believed to be inaccurate criticism of Whitehall. But it was not for him to say.
NSPCC
Asked if the Prime Minister would be making an announcement on paedophiles, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister would announce that in the coming months we would introduce a new power for police to enter and search a registered sex offender’s home for the purpose of assessing the risk they posed to the community.
For example, a police officer that saw a child’s bike outside the house of a registered sex offender might be able to go in and search for further evidence that would allow them to reassess the risk posed by that offender. Where it could be demonstrated that the offender posed a risk of serious sexual harm, the police could then apply for a preventative order, or decide whether it was necessary to alert others to the presence of the offender. Formerly police had to have a "reasonable belief" that a crime had been committed in order to apply for a warrant. This announcement was therefore a refinement of that ability. Asked to clarify that police would no longer need a warrant, the PMOS replied that that was correct.
Health Service Reconfiguration
Asked if Patricia Hewitt had raised the issue of Cabinet Ministers campaigning against reconfiguration in their own constituencies, the PMOS replied that the issue was not raised. We did need to differentiate between two things. Where there was a local consultation process going on, it was perfectly legitimate for MPs and Ministers to make their views known as local representatives of the community. However it became different when decisions were taken following that consultation and decisions were announced. But we were not yet at this stage.
Asked to characterise the tone of this discussion, had there been concerns by other Cabinet Ministers, the PMOS replied that the tone of the discussion was very supportive of Patricia Hewitt. She was praised for undertaking such a fundamental process and carrying it out with great sensitivity. It was a process that meant firstly updating our thinking in terms of medical practice, because medical practice was dictating structural changes, and secondly responding to what patients had said. In terms of patient satisfaction, this had increased dramatically in the last six months. People could now see the impact of the reforms on their care.
Put to him that while Ministers were entitled to contribute to the consultation process whilst it was going on, the Prime Minister was expecting them to "shut up" once the decision had been made, the PMOS replied that this was a very undiplomatic way of putting it. There was a clear distinction between representing views in a Minister’s constituency whilst the consultation process was going on. But once a decision was made, this of course became part of Government policy. That was not unique to this debate. Asked if representing views included joining demonstrations, the PMOS replied that people represented their views in a variety of different ways. It was perfectly legitimate to represent views in whatever way people wanted. This was no different to any other policy.
6 Party Talks
Asked about the 6 party talks in Beijing today, the PMOS said that we would watch very carefully what emerged from these discussions. We believed that it was a positive development that they had resumed. But we also wanted to see outcomes.
Efficiency Gains
Asked if there was any response to comments by the National Audit Office that many of the recently announced efficiency gains in Whitehall were inaccurate, the PMOS replied that he had not seen the report in detail, so he would come back to it later.
Downing Street Snowman
Put to him the most important question of the day was who was responsible for the "terrible" snowman in Downing Street and did it represent the Prime Minister as it was melting rapidly, the PMOS replied that he did not think it was the most important question of the day, but it certainly was the worst.
Police Inquiry
Asked if there had been any further contact with the police, the PMOS replied that not so far as he was aware.
delicious
digg
facebook
