Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Privy Council Secretariat Changes, Police Inquiry, Forced Marriages and House of Lords Reform
Privy Council Secretariat Changes
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) told journalists that there was a Prime Ministerial Written Ministerial Statement on Privy Council Secretariat changes. He explained that it was a machinery of Government change about their moving to the DCA, as it was thought that they would be better if they were part of an overall department.
Asked if the changes in the Privy Council were a "taster" to changes to a Ministry of Justice, and what was happening with it all, the PMOS replied that as we had said at the time, this was a serious issue and a serious proposal, and therefore, it demanded serious consideration. The Prime Minister would make his mind up whenever he had considered all sides of the issue. However, we were not there yet.
Police Inquiry
Asked if the Government was considering a review of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, as the Attorney General appeared to be unhappy, the PMOS said that this was a matter for the Attorney General. The PMOS said that he was not aware of anything along those lines, but people would be reflecting on the events of the past few days.
Put that the Prime Minister had given a rather short answer to Sir Menzies Campbell at PMQs today on the splitting up of the Attorney General’s role, and what was the Prime Minister’s thinking about the Attorney General’s role, the PMOS said that the answer may have been short, but the intention was clear.
Asked for clarification about what was meant by the fact that Lord Levy’s role was "unchanged", and was he still actively involved, and did he still use his office and the officials at the FCO, the PMOS replied that it was an ongoing role, and in that sense, it remained an unchanged role. We did not brief on it in detail precisely because it was a role that involved private conversations with all sides in the Middle East. If people wanted to know more about how the Prime Minister saw that, the best way was to look at the press conference in Ramallah. The Prime Minister had set out not just what it was that he thought Lord Levy brought to the role, but also, why he valued it.
Put that the BBC this afternoon were trying to expose the details of the original injunction and the restrictions involved, and did No10 have any view, the PMOS replied that we had no view because first and foremost, this was an injunction that the Metropolitan Police requested of the Attorney General and had nothing to do with us. Therefore, given that it had nothing to do with us in its origin, it was nothing to do with us now.
Asked further about the injunction, the PMOS said that it was entirely a matter for the Attorney General and for others to consider, not him.
Put that the Attorney General had implied in an interview today that Downing Street and the Metropolitan Police were "not the best of friends" and were we aware of any frustrations, the PMOS replied that as we had frequently said, the Met Police had a job to do. We believed that they should be allowed to get on with that job without leaks and without speculation or a running commentary on the investigation. As the PMOS had also said, he did not know where the leaks had come from; others in the room may have a better idea than he. Whatever the source, it was unhelpful, and we believed that it should not be happening, and we would certainly not do anything to add to the speculation. There were times when, as in earlier that week, to prevent a fundamental misconception becoming accepted fact, it was necessary to comment. Otherwise, we would try and keep comments to a minimum.
Asked if there were concerns regarding specific elements of the investigation, i.e., dawn raids, the PMOS went on to say that not only were we not going to give a running commentary, we were also not going to give marks out of ten to various events. The important thing was that the police investigation was allowed to carry on and that we should treat it like any other investigation, and the rules were very clear. People should not leak evidence as part of an investigation, and it should be carried on in a way that was not prejudicial to any of those involved.
Asked if we had had any official communication from Scotland Yard about not leaking, the PMOS said that the question came under the heading of giving a commentary, and he was not going to do that.
Forced Marriages
Asked for further information about the Prime Minister’s answer to Ann Cryer’s question today at PMQs about forced marriages, and would there be a Government Bill, the PMOS said that that was what we were working through with the sponsor of the Bill. We needed a bit more time to work it through, but the Prime Minister had set out the clear intention, and why we believed that it was the right thing to do.
House of Lords Reform
Asked how the Prime Minister would vote this afternoon, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister would vote at some point, but that he was sorry to be old fashioned and asked that the journalists waited.
Asked if the Prime Minister had given up on his position of an all-appointed House of Lords, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister believed that the Government’s manifesto at the election was to try and seek a consensus in Parliament on this issue. As the PMOS had said at the time when the White Paper was published, the Prime Minister supported the Leader of the House in his efforts to reach that consensus. How that was interpreted in terms of the actual vote, people would have to wait and see.
delicious
digg
facebook
