Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Iraq, Palestinian Conference, Northern Ireland, Gun Crime/Burglary/Sentencing and Lords Reform.
Iraq
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Foreign Secretary had placed in the Library of the House a document which set out our aims and objectives on Iraq. Although it contained nothing new, it was important inasmuch as it was a clear publicly available statement of our purpose in this area. Our prime objective was to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction (WMD), in addition to their associated programmes and means of delivery, including prohibited ballistic missiles. Our immediate priorities were to support the work of the UNMOVIC inspectors in Iraq, to enable UNMOVIC and the IAEA to institute long term measures to ensure compliance, to maintain international solidarity behind the UN Security Council, to preserve regional stability, to continue to make military plans and preparations in case military action was required and to continue to support humanitarian efforts to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people. We would like Iraq to become a stable, united and law-abiding state within its present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, abiding by all of its international obligations and providing effective and representative Government for its own people. These objectives were consistent with wider Government policy which included efforts to resolve other causes of regional instability, such as the Middle East peace process, wider political engagement with Arab countries and the Islamic world, efforts to counter the proliferation of WMD and the elimination of terrorism as a force in international affairs.
Questioned as to whether an ‘effective and representative Government’ for the Iraqi people could include Saddam Hussein, the PMOS said that that was a choice for Saddam himself to make. If he were to comply with all UN Resolutions on Iraq, then ipso facto Iraq would be a different country. Asked about the possibility of Saddam Hussein being appointed a ‘representative’ leader or his Government being appointed a ‘representative’ Government, the PMOS said that our position on this matter had not changed one iota. Our priority was disarmament. However, as we had made clear from the outset, we also wanted to see a free and democratic Iraq.
Asked whether Geoff Hoon’s Statement to the House this afternoon was significant, the PMOS said that journalists should wait for the Statement and then make their own judgements. It would clearly demonstrate that we were delivering on our promise to make preparations in case military action was needed. Obviously we hoped that military action would not be necessary. However, if history had taught us one thing it was that Saddam Hussein would only respond if he believed that he had no other choice. It was his call. In the meantime, we would continue with our preparations.
Put to him that the Prime Minister’s insistence in his speech later today that he would not commit troops to a war he thought was wrong did not seem to square with his apparent view that it was impossible the US would go to war without us, the PMOS said that the basic message of the Prime Minister’s speech was that because of our history, our strengths and our position in various world institutions - whether the UN, NATO or the EU - we had a role which allowed us to play the part of a unifier and to address issues around the world. It was not a case of either being the US’s closest ally or helping to address issues such as the Middle East peace process and global poverty. It was a question of addressing these matters in the round. If we were able to fulfil a role in influencing others to address these issues as well, then that was clearly a good thing. Equally, the Prime Minister was making the point that we could not leave the US to face the difficult issues on its own. We were all agreed that WMD, international terrorism and the possibility of a crossover between the two were issues which had to be addressed. However, just because the US was a superpower did not mean that it should be the one to have to do it alone. International alliances didn’t work that way. Questioned further about the apparent discrepancy in the Prime Minister’s speech, the PMOS said that there was no discrepancy. The Prime Minister was making the point that he was not going to commit British troops to a war just because we were the US’s closest ally. He would, however, commit British troops if he believed it was in our national interest to do so and if there was no other way to deal with issues of concerns, such as WMD. Of course we hoped that military action would not be necessary, which was why we were underlining that war was not inevitable. Nevertheless, we were continuing to make preparations, firstly in case it was necessary, and secondly to send a clear and unambiguous message to Saddam.
Asked if the Prime Minister was suggesting that we were already receiving a ‘quid pro quo’ from the US on issues such as the Middle East and world poverty or whether that was something they should be doing, the PMOS said that the term ‘quid pro quo’ did not appear in the text of the Prime Minister’s speech today. Nor did he think of the issue in such simplistic terms. It was not a question of saying that if the US took a certain course of action we would reciprocate in another way. There were global issues which we all had to address together, including the Middle East peace process and global poverty. By going down the UN route on Iraq, the US had shown that it was prepared to adopt this multilateral approach. Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister was sending a message to the US Administration that such an approach was working or whether he was indicating that they should be doing more, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister was simply pointing out to whoever was interested that this was our approach. It was not a case of either/or. It was both.
Asked about the significance of the January 27 deadline and whether it was flexible, the PMOS said that the date had been written into UN Resolution 1441 as the time when the weapons inspectors were due to report back to the UN Security Council. It was important to wait for that to happen before hypothesising about what might or might not occur. Asked how soon after January 27 might the issue be debated in the Security Council, the PMOS said that what might happen depended on the nature of the report. Rather than hypothecate, it was better to wait for the presentation to the UN on 27 January. Questioned as to whether Hans Blix and his team would be granted more time to compile a report if they requested it, the PMOS declined to be drawn into a hypothetical discussion. He reminded journalists of what the Prime Minister had said in his Sedgefield news conference a few months ago in which he had underlined that the UN must be a way of dealing with the issue, not avoiding it. That position had not changed. Asked to what extent the US had come closer to the UK’s position in terms of its desire to receive official authorisation from the Security Council before going ahead with military action, the PMOS said that he was not a spokesman for the American Administration. They could speak for themselves.
Asked if the Prime Minister accepted that there was ‘widespread misunderstanding’ - even amongst those being sent to the Gulf - as to the reasons why we might have to launch a military campaign against Iraq, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister continued to articulate why we believed we had to address the issue of WMD. Saddam had defied the UN for over a decade and had not complied with UN Resolutions which had been put in place for a very good reason. The international community recognised that a rogue state such as Iraq which possessed WMD which could kill hundreds of thousands of people was not a safe option. That was why Iraq needed to be disarmed. In addition, there were genuine concerns about a crossover between WMD and international terrorism. As we had seen with September 11, these were fanatics who had no moral compunction about killing many innocent people. Resolution 1441 had given us a way to deal with these concerns diplomatically. However, if Saddam did not comply he had to realise that he would be dealt with another way.
Palestinian Conference
Asked about the status of the Palestinian conference in the light of Israel’s announcement yesterday that it would not allow Palestinian delegates to attend, the PMOS said that we were continuing to make preparations for the meeting and were in contact with the Israeli Government at the highest level. We continued to believe that it was necessary because, as Israel itself had stated, the Palestinian Authority needed to be reformed so as to complement moves on the wider front. Asked if he was implying that our contacts with Israel were taking place at Prime Ministerial level, the PMOS said that he would not be surprised if he was able to confirm at the end of the day that the Prime Minister had written to the Israeli Prime Minister to explain the context of the meeting we were proposing to host and to clarify that it was aimed specifically at the narrow but very important issue of Palestinian reform - something which the Israelis themselves had underlined was necessary.
Asked if we were still presuming that the conference would take place next week, the PMOS said that we were continuing to prepare for the meeting in the way we had been preparing for it. It was important to wait and see what the results of our contacts with the Israeli Government might be.
Put to him that, for all the rhetoric by the Prime Minister and President Bush, it would appear that little progress was being made in the Middle East peace process, the PMOS said that the fact that President Bush had been the first US President to articulate the idea of a Palestinian state should not be glossed over. It had been a very significant move. Work was ongoing to find a way to move forward on the twin-track approach of having both a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state. While that might not be headline-grabbing stuff, its significance in the region should not be under-estimated. Equally, it was important for people to recognise that we had to work with the reality on the ground. As events in recent days had tragically shown once again, the reality was clearly not easy. However, that did not mean that we should not continue to work diplomatically, quietly and in the background towards the goals we had set ourselves. Asked whether the British Government had been in contact with the US Administration in the light of suggestions that the Israelis might be more convinced about the idea if they heard it from the Americans, the PMOS said that the US had been fully aware of our plans from the outset to hold a conference on Palestinian reform and had been supportive.
Northern Ireland
Asked about David Trimble’s meeting with the Prime Minister this morning, the PMOS took the opportunity to update journalists on where we were since the suspension of the institutions a few months ago. He said that the Prime Minister had visited Belfast in late autumn where he had set out a very clear agenda regarding the way forward - the key to which was to see acts of completion within the process. That meant bringing paramilitary activity to an end in order to allow the institutions to be restored and to move on. We had deliberately instituted this period so as to allow people to reflect on what the Prime Minister had said. That period was now coming to a natural end and it was time to begin talking to people to discuss how we could move things forward. The Prime Minister would have a series of meetings with the key players over the coming weeks. As a result of the May elections and the impact that they might have on the process, we were facing a relatively small window of opportunity. However, it was there and the Prime Minister firmly believed that we should all seize it. Put to him that the Northern Ireland Assembly would have to be formally reconvened in order to allow the May elections to go ahead and whether that would happen, the PMOS said that at the moment we were focussing on trying to restore the Assembly and the Executive, which meant that the question was hypothetical.
Asked if the Government was expecting any movement from the IRA on decommissioning, the PMOS said that the progress which needed to be made was set out in black and white in the Prime Minister’s speech in Belfast last October. It had explained clearly why paramilitary activity, rather than strengthening anyone’s negotiating hand, had now become completely counterproductive.
Gun Crime/Burglary/Sentencing
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that people would understand why burglars would not be sent to prison unless they had been convicted three times, the PMOS said that as the Lord Chancellor had underlined, burglary was a very serious offence and the effect on victims could be very traumatic, as the courts had always recognised. As a result, we continued to expect the courts to reflect that. However, in the case of a first time offender and on occasions where little or nothing had been taken (although of course that was not to under-estimate the seriousness of the offence), a community penalty might be deemed to be more appropriate, and experience suggested that such a course of action could sometimes be the most effective way to stop re-offending. However, in the case of a repeat offender who returned to burglary, the offence should normally merit a prison sentence. That should be the position, irrespective of the pressures on the prison population. Asked if he would acknowledge that recent cases had ‘leaned over too far backwards’ on the issue of community rehabilitation given the offenders in question had a string of convictions - some of which had involved weapons, the PMOS said that it was not for him to comment on individual cases or judges. However, the message we were sending was very clear and we expected it to be reflected in the sentences handed down to people. It was important to recognise that there were many options relating to sentencing and that it was essential for the court to decide what the most appropriate sentence for the crime and the offender might be. There would be times when community sentencing was the most suitable way to punish an offender. Equally, there were times when a prison sentence would be more appropriate.
Asked if the Prime Minister would accept that a five-year mandatory prison sentence for gun crime was a headline-grabbing initiative and was not something which could be legislated because of exceptions that would have to be made, the PMOS said no. On the contrary. We could hardly be accused of trying to grab headlines when this was something we had signalled in December. He pointed out that of course, as with any law, we had to take into account minor offences, for example someone forgetting to renew a licence, when it might not be appropriate to impose a prison sentence. That level of detail was still being worked out. That said, the policy as a whole was important if we were to face up to the serious issue of gun crime. Put to him that making exceptions on gun crime would leave the way open for judges to re-interpret the policy, the PMOS said it was important to recognise that there would be exceptional circumstances. However, the strong message we were sending was that the vast majority of gun crime would carry a mandatory prison sentence.
Lords Reform
Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with the Lord Chancellor’s comments this morning on Lords reform, the PMOS said that it was up to the Joint Committee to address the issue.
delicious
digg
facebook
