Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Anti-Social Behaviour, Hutton Enquiry, Northern Ireland, ID Cards and Peter Mandelson.
Anti-Social Behaviour
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) informed journalists that the Prime Minister would be speaking at the Anti-social Behaviour Symposium today. The PMOS told journalists that the central thrust of what the Prime Minister intended to say was that the Government had listened to the police, housing officers and local authorities and had given - and were giving - them the powers to deal with anti-social behaviour. Now, obviously, the Government wanted those powers to be used. The Prime Minister would say that "We owe it to the victims of anti- social behaviour, often, the poorest in society to get our act together. No excuses, no ifs and buts. It’s not acceptable for these powers to be used in some parts of the country and not others. Loutish behaviour is loutish behaviour wherever it is. And it should be dealt with in the same way wherever it happens. So - not occasionally, not as a last resort, but now, with real energy, in all parts of the country. It’s time to respect others. It’s time to respect our communities". He would give examples of some of the areas where the Government was giving people more powers. For instance restricting the sale of Fireworks. He would talk about how, up and down the country, anti-social behaviour was the issue most frequently raised by people. The Prime Minister would say: "I listen to their stories, the same things come up time again. A tiny number of people on an estate of hundreds making people’s lives a misery. Shouted insults in the street, graffiti daubed on the front door, fireworks used as weapons, abandoned cars left in the streets." He would talk about giving local communities, local authorities and the police the power so that they could determine at local level what was necessary.
Asked if this speech was an admission of failure by the Government, the PMOS said he didn’t agree. What people had seen since this Government had come to power was a determination to deal with what might loosely be called some of the underlying issues in relation to crime and anti-social behaviour. For instance increasing educational opportunity, increasing employment opportunity and ensuring that our poorest neighbourhoods were regenerated. What the Government had also done - and this had happened in the first term and we were now building on it - was to give new powers to the authorities whose responsibility it was to deal with the issue of anti-social behaviour. So for example the police had been given the use of Fixed-Penalty Notices for anti-social behaviour in a way that meant they could short-circuit the court system. There were Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. What was clear though was that implementation of these measures around the country had been patchy and it was no good simply making those powers available if they were not used. The Prime Minister’s message today was that the Government was listening and would continue to listen. What was happening today should not be seen as having come out of a clear blue sky. It was a continuum of a sustained policy in this area but we did have to see enforcement. It was not enough simply to legislate powers which then sat on the statute book. People had to actually use them if they were to make a difference.
The PMOS said that Camden accounted for half of all Anti-Social Behaviour Orders issued in London. Obviously there were particular problems in relation to the Kings Cross area, but he said he didn’t think anyone was pretending that half of all anti-social behaviour in London happened in that one borough, which illustrated the Prime Minister’s point.
Asked to clarify whether the Prime Minister had any power to compel local authorities to act, the PMOS said that no one was saying there was a big stick which could be used in this particular instance to force people to do certain things, but what was absolutely clear was that it was in those communities’ interest that these powers were used. Clearly pressure could be applied from the bottom up when the communities themselves asked why these powers were not being used to tackle anti-social activities. It was perfectly appropriate for the Government to call into question why, for instance, these measures could be used in some parts of the country where they had been successful and why, in other parts of the country, they were scarcely used. The behaviour did not differ that much from city to city and county to county.
Asked how this squared with the "new localism" if we were dictating local policy from above, the PMOS said that was fundamentally misrepresenting what the Government was doing. We had set up mechanisms at the centre whereby we could listen to concerns around the country and bring forward legislation to address them. We were then saying to the authorities ‘you now have this legislation, you can use it as you see fit’. [For example Sky had done a piece this morning on the success of Anti-social Behaviour Orders in Leeds, yet no one could pretend that anti-social behaviour was a phenomenon which was exclusive to Leeds, quite the contrary.] The Prime Minster was using the speech today to underline to all the authorities concerned that Government had its responsibility to invest and also to legislate and bring forward appropriate mechanisms to tackle what was a very big social problem, but it was for local communities and local authorities at that level to use the powers. The PMOS said he didn’t think anyone was saying that these powers were not worth using.
Asked why the Prime Minister thought they had not been used and whether it was because many perceived them as unworkable as some people had told him on his regional tours, the PMOS said that he couldn’t account for every conversation the Prime Minister had had but what was clear from the feedback on Fixed Penalty Notices was that the police welcomed having a power they could use which short circuited a lengthy court system. They were hardly unworkable. Asked why then they hadn’t used them, the PMOS said that was a question which should be asked of the different authorities, although in the case of the previous example there were only pilots in four areas and the Government was extending them. In respect of anti-social behaviour, the Bill currently going through would extend the range of powers that were already available, but he repeated that there were a number of powers which had already been legislated for in the first term which had been used in some parts of the country and not others. The PMOS said he felt it was perfectly reasonable to say, as the Prime Minister would today, that it was time for authorities to use the powers which they had.
Hutton Inquiry
Asked if the Prime Minister had authorised the disclosure of Dr David Kelly’s name to the press in the light of Sir Kevin Tebbit’s evidence yesterday, the PMOS told journalists that as the Prime Minister had said in September, we should let the judge do the judging. Lord Hutton had carried out a very detailed and thorough Inquiry and obviously it was now for him to write his report. Asked if Sir Kevin Tebbit’s version of events yesterday was accurate, the PMOS said that it was for Lord Hutton to consider all the evidence that had been presented and then to reach his conclusions. Asked if he had any quarrel with Sir Kevin Tebbit’s evidence, the PMOS said that he had not commented on any evidence that been given by anybody to this inquiry and he did not intend to start now.
Northern Ireland
Asked about developments on Northern Ireland and whether any further meetings were expected, the PMOS said that in relation to yesterday he thought everybody had felt that it was a positive day. There had been a lot of good talking and constructive engagement but nobody was under any illusions about the challenges that everybody faced. Nor was anybody taking anything for granted. The PMOS told journalists what we were seeing now after yesterday’s intensive engagement at Downing Street, was a further period of intensive dialogue behind the scenes. He would not encourage people to expect anything this week. We would have to see how things went, but there was a lot of activity. The Prime Minister was obviously involved and the Prime Minister would speak to whoever he felt it was necessary to speak to.
ID Cards
Asked why David Blunkett had accused his fellow Cabinet colleagues of talking nonsense about ID cards, the PMOS said he hadn’t interpreted his comments like that. What David Blunkett was saying was that there was a vigorous debate taking place in Cabinet and it was perfectly good Government for that to happen. Often people had criticised this Government, saying that everything was decided by dictat and fiat from the centre and there was no discussion. What we had at the moment was an ongoing discussion and debate about an important issue. The Domestic Affairs Committee, chaired by John Prescott, was continuing its work looking at the range of issues that related to identity cards. This would, as David Blunkett had said, obviously come back to Cabinet at a later date. No member of the Cabinet was in any way disparaging or criticising views held by colleagues which were genuinely held or part of a genuine debate. In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that he didn’t think anyone who had heard the interview this morning could have been anything other than taken by the constructive and collegiate tone that the Home Secretary had adopted.
Peter Mandelson
Asked to clarify Peter Mandelson’s status in relation to the Government, the PMOS said he didn’t quite understand the genesis of the question. Peter Mandelson was a Member of Parliament and a backbencher. He was clearly somebody who the Prime Minister spoke to from time to time. All that was well known and hadn’t changed. Asked if he spoke for the Prime Minister, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister spoke for himself or through his Official Spokesmen.
delicious
digg
facebook
