Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Fixed Penalty Notices, Burrell Case, Adoption Bill and Nurses’ Pay/Fire Dispute.
Fixed Penalty Notices
Following the Prime Minister’s words on fixed penalty notices during his press conference this morning, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman provided additional detail for journalists. As the Prime Minister had said, he had received a report from the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, Paul Scott Lee. West Midlands was one of four forces piloting the fixed penalty notices. He had sent the Prime Minister a written analysis of progress so far. He had talked of how, in August and September of this year, around 400 notices had been issued, with the majority relating to offences of drunk and disorderly behaviour. He said he was encouraged that around half of those issued had already paid the fines and that only 10 had elected to go to court instead. He pointed out that the full impact of the scheme was not yet clear, but that the feedback from his officers showed that they saw the scheme as practical and effective for dealing quickly with offenders. He said that officers were happy not to have to prepare case papers or fingerprint offenders, enabling them to spend more time policing the streets. His officers had also suggested other offences which they thought could be included in the scheme, such as litter, low level damage and graffiti. The Prime Minister believed it was encouraging that the police themselves were not only showing support for this scheme but that they also felt they had ownership of its future development. The PMOS quoted a passage from the Chief Constable’s letter to illustrate the support the scheme had:
"The early evidence for the police indicates a genuine saving in police time…..The full impact of the pilot is not yet clear, but I remain optimistic that the overall benefit to the community, by way of freeing up police officers, reducing delay in the courts and tackling swiftly offending and anti-social behaviour, will be significant".
In answer to questions, the PMOS said that just under 900 fixed penalty notices had been issued nationally, in the four areas where the scheme was being piloted, namely Croydon, Essex, West Midlands and North Wales. Asked when the pilots had started, the PMOS said he thought it was in August. Asked if the Prime Minister had received similar communications from the Chief Constables of Croydon, Essex and North Wales, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. However, we hoped that they were experiencing similar success. Asked if there was any significance in the fact that the fixed penalty notices issued by West Midlands Police made up almost half of the national total, the PMOS pointed out that the West Midlands covered a bigger area than the other three. He added that, given police officers had been provided with the freedom to implement the fixed penalty notices, it was for them to work out how to use them and at what level of intensity. Obviously, West Midlands Police saw them as being a valuable resource. Of course they were not a replacement for other powers they had. They were, however, complementary to them, and were clearly having a positive effect. Self-evidently, the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police was an advocate of fixed penalty notices, but we had yet to see how the scheme panned out in its entirety. Through the Queen’s Speech and the next legislative session, we were looking at how we could take forward fixed penalty notices - both in terms of the principle and the practice.
Questioned as to whether fixed penalty notices might be rolled out to cover a wider range of offences, the PMOS said yes. That was certainly something we were looking at. At the moment, they were being used chiefly to deal with drunk and disorderly behaviour. However, they could also be used to tackle other anti-social problems, including litter, low level damage and graffiti. The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police had mentioned in his letter, for example, that fixed penalty notices had been issued to people for wasting police time. This showed that they were already more flexible than people thought.
Asked what would happen once the pilots had concluded, the PMOS said that they would be evaluated and a decision would then be taken as to whether to roll the scheme out nationally in cases where fixed penalty notices could already be used. That meant that we could spread current practice without primary legislation. However, were we to increase the range of offences for which fixed penalty notices could be given, legislation would then be required.
Put to him that these measures to tackle anti-social behaviour were simply a re-branding of a ‘boring’ Criminal Justice Queen’s Speech in order to provide an interesting theme for it, the PMOS said that not only would he disagree with the premise of the question, but he thought journalists would disagree too once they saw the Queen’s Speech for themselves. We were focussing on an area of Government policy which, as the Prime Minister had said last Thursday, was of huge importance to a very large number of people in the country. We had already indicated that legislation in the next session would focus on criminal justice, some of which we anticipated would be fairly fundamental and cause some real debate. Just because journalists were already familiar with the Auld Review and Halliday Review did not mean that the contents of the Queen’s Speech would not be significant. It would be.
Burrell Case
Asked why the Prime Minister had told journalists this morning that he had discussed the Paul Burrell case during his Audience with the Queen when it was Downing Street’s practice never to reveal what was discussed in those meetings, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had been underlining, for the avoidance of doubt, that he had heard about the matter at his Audience last Tuesday subsequent to the case being paused last Monday. That did not mean that we were changing in any way, shape or form our policy not to brief on the detail of those meetings. Put to him repeatedly that the convention appeared only to apply when it was convenient for the Prime Minister, the PMOS said he would disagree. He repeated that the Prime Minister had said what he had said this morning in order to underline the point about when he had heard what had happened. He hadn’t commented at all on the nature of his conversation with the Queen. It was simply a statement of fact.
Adoption Bill
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister was planning to vote on the Adoption Bill tonight, the PMOS said he expected to do so, diary commitments permitting. He would be voting in favour of the Bill and in favour of the amendment. Questioned further, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had taken a close, personal interest in the issue of adoption, both in this Parliament and in the last. This Bill was about how we could widen the pool of people who could potentially adopt, thereby giving more children the opportunity to experience a stable family background - in particular children who were in care. The existing arrangements meant that unmarried single people, regardless of their sexual orientation, could adopt. The amendment to the Government’s Bill would extend that opportunity to unmarried couples. It did not, however, change the fundamental principle that the interests of the child would always come first. Obviously there were criteria which had to be met before anyone could adopt children, and that principle would continue.
Asked if any thought had been given to the possibility of changing the legal status of unmarried couples, the PMOS said no. Clearly, there were genuine issues of concern here, which was why the Prime Minister had decided to put the issue to a free vote.
Nurses’ Pay/Fire Dispute
Asked how the Prime Minister would react to a ‘double digit’ pay increase demanded by nurses, the PMOS said he would say that there was a Pay Review Body which took evidence from the nursing unions and the Government and then made recommendations to the Department of Health who would consider them. If nurses were demanding such an increase, it was up to the Pay Review Body to consider the demand in the first instance in their usual way.
Put to him that the principle applied to the FBU - that pay should rise by no more than the level of inflation - should apply equally to nurses, the PMOS pointed out that the talks with the fire leaders were focussing on a 4% increase, which was higher than the rate of inflation. That was already on the table. We were putting significant extra resources into our public services over and above the current rate of inflation. The Prime Minister had made it clear that if we wanted to see the real benefits from that money, it couldn’t all be swallowed up by pay. In the past, the Pay Review Bodies had recommended increases above the rate of inflation - perhaps not dramatically so, nevertheless in the Government’s view they had been fair and affordable. In saying this, he was simply stating a fact, not sending a signal about future pay awards. The fact was that we had a low inflation economy because of the way the Government had managed public finances, amongst other things.
delicious
digg
facebook
