Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Crime, Iraq/WMD and Lords Reform.
Crime
Asked by the Express for the conclusions the Government drew from the British Crime Survey (BCS) suggestion that readers of tabloid newspapers were much more likely to be worried about crime than readers of the broadsheets, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that it was a matter for the tabloids themselves to reflect on that finding. The most important thing about the latest crime statistics was that the BCS, which had remained the stable standard for the last twenty years, had recorded the fact that people were much less likely to be a victim of crime today than at any stage in the past two decades. At the same time, we were completely open about the fact that violent crime had risen, although that was partly the result of the way the data had been compiled in view of the fact that street harassment, for example, was now included. Obviously that was an issue we had to deal with. The most important thing to note was that overall crime had gone down. Asked if he was implying that tabloid newspapers were sensationalising the coverage of crime, hence the reason their readers were more scared, the PMOS said that the Government, police and media all had a responsibility to reflect on whether the coverage either reflected or affected reality in terms of whether it gave people a distorted view of the real picture. Of course that was not to under-estimate in any way the misery, fear and concern of those who had fallen victim to crime - and that clearly had to remain paramount in ministers’ thinking. The point he was making was that it was important to recognise the BCS’s conclusion that overall crime was falling and that the chances of being a victim of crime were at their lowest level for twenty years. Asked if he would agree that readers of the tabloids tended, on average, to live in areas more afflicted by crime and that their fear was therefore more rational, the PMOS said that it could be a factor, but the question was whether it was the only factor. We needed to reflect on the reasons and engage in a mature debate which recognised the reality of crime and the very real impact which crime had on individuals and families. At the same time, it was important to take into account all possible factors, as well as the danger that if the coverage of crime was treated in a certain way, it could lead to a mismatch between perception and reality.
Iraq/WMD
Asked for a reaction to the Opposition’s Leader accusation today that the Prime Minister had told a ‘downright lie’ in relation to the briefing paper published in February, the PMOS said that as a Civil Service he was unable to comment directly on a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. However, as the Prime Minister had told the Commons, the Leader of the Opposition had been shown the intelligence which lay behind both the September dossier and February document. He had not said that he had been shown the actual documents, as Hansard itself would testify. Asked if the Prime Minister was intending to respond to the Opposition Leader’s latest comments, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had replied to a letter on the day the issue had first been raised. Obviously he would reply were any further correspondence to be sent.
Lords Reform
Asked how he would square the indication from the Lord Chancellor this morning that the Government’s preference was for an appointed House of Lords with Peter Hain’s comment this afternoon that a fully appointed chamber was not a sustainable solution, the PMOS said it underlined the fact, as we had been emphasising consistently, that this was a matter for Parliament. We had never hidden the fact that there were differences of view and differences in perspective. The difficulty had been in getting an overall consensus about what should happen. However, that should not serve to prevent the Government making incremental changes where a consensus was achieved. That was precisely why we had asked the Joint Committee to look at issues such as the size of the chamber and its make-up in terms of gender, race and regional background.
Asked if the fact that he was talking about ‘incremental change’ was an indication that the Government had abandoned any hope of bringing in any major changes before the next election, the PMOS said that we were continuing to search for a consensus. However, we had to be realistic about the fact that the votes in the Commons reflected a lack of such a thing. As a result, we would continue to make changes where there was support for it. Asked if that meant that we might try to get rid of the voting rights of the remaining hereditary peers without addressing wider questions about membership for example, the PMOS said that the Government’s response to the Joint Committee spelled out our position on the hereditaries. As to any future action, he had no intention of pre-empting or pre-judging what might or might not happen. Put to him that Robin Cook had pointed out today that the single biggest majority in the Commons had been against a wholly-appointed House of Lords - which was consensus of a kind - and yet it appeared that that was the direction towards which we were heading, the PMOS said that Mr Cook’s position on Lords reform was well known. He pointed out that there had been no consensus in the Commons for either his position or anybody else’s.
delicious
digg
facebook
