Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: CPS, Iraq and US Presidential Election.
CPS
Asked if the Home Secretary had jumped the gun yesterday by announcing that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would be renamed the Public Prosecution Service, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said we were surprised that people were surprised about this issue given the fact that it had been floated as an idea by the Attorney General last January, the Home Secretary last summer and the Director of Public Prosecutions two weeks ago. He underlined that it was still being floated as an idea. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, had issued a statement yesterday saying, "We are a public prosecution service and for some time I have favoured a change of name to make that clearer". No final decision had been reached at this point. When the process was complete, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions would make an announcement. The idea had merit because it reflected the point that the Prosecution Service worked on behalf of the public.
Put to him it was clear that the Monarchy represented the public interest, the PMOS said that if the name were to be changed, it would reflect the fact that the Prosecution Service was working on behalf of the public. At this point, however, it was important to be clear that no final decision had been taken. Asked by the Press Association why only the CPS might be changing its name when other organisations, jobs and laws derived their authority from the Crown as well, the PMOS underlined that there was no proposal to change the concept of the Queen vs John Smith - or even Jon Smith. He apologised for his little in-joke.
Asked if he would agree that the Director of Public Prosecution’s argument in favour of renaming the CPS could be applied equally to Britain’s armed forces, the PMOS said that the change of name, were it to happen, would simply reflect the fact that the Prosecution Service was acting on behalf of the public, as indeed the name ‘Director of Public Prosecutions’ would indicate. The proposal was not in any way meant to demean the role of the Crown or the Queen. Put to him that the armed forces also performed a public service and that, according to his argument, they should also be renamed, the PMOS pointed out that the armed forces acted on behalf of the nation as a whole. He repeated that nothing had been settled at this stage. These were issues which needed to be debated, which was why a consultation process was under way. Asked to rule out categorically the prospect of the armed forces being renamed, the PMOS said that it was not an issue he was aware of. Asked if there was also a plan afoot to change the name of ‘Her Majesty’s Prisons’ to ‘People’s Prisons’, the PMOS said he believed that a consultation exercise was currently underway about this matter. He referred journalists to the Prisons Service for the detail of it.
Put to him that the whole point of the Crown Prosecution Service was the fact that it was an independent entity which brought prosecutions under the symbolic authority of the Crown, and therefore did not act on behalf of the public, the PMOS said that in terms of fighting and reducing crime, the Prosecution Service was acting on behalf of the public. That was why there was a ‘Director of Public Prosecutions’. Put to him that the whole point of ‘Republicanism’ was to replace the Crown, the PMOS pointed out that the Director of Public Prosecutions, as his name implied, was acting on behalf of the public against those who committed crimes against the public. The view, therefore, was that the Prosecution Service should reflect that fact more fully.
Asked if there was any evidence to suggest that members of the public were confused by the title ‘Crown Prosecution Service’, the PMOS referred journalists to the relevant departments for details of any research that might have been carried out into this matter. He said he thought it was worthwhile to think about whether the public wanted to see a name which reflected the fact that the Prosecution Service represented them. Pressed as to whether there was any evidence of public demand or desire for change, the PMOS pointed out that the fact the name change had become an issue which serious people, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Home Secretary and the Attorney General, all thought was worth considering, was clearly important.
Asked if the name change would be a worthy use of public funds if people were unable to identify how taking such action could possibly advance the cause of law and order, the PMOS said he would disagree with the premise of the question inasmuch as he believed it was worth debating and thinking about whether a name change would make the organisation’s role clearer to ordinary members of the public. The idea should not be dismissed lightly because names clearly mattered.
Asked why the Palace had not been consulted about the idea to rename the CPS if the proposal had been floating around since last January, the PMOS said that the Palace had been aware of the idea. The formal consultation process was now taking place. Asked if he was indicating that the Queen/Palace had been consulted, the PMOS said that since the Attorney General, the Home Secretary and the Director of Public Prosecutions had all spoken about this matter in public, it had therefore become a matter of public debate. There was also a consultation process which would include the Queen as well.
Asked for a reaction to the suggestion that the proposal to rename the CPS, make changes to the Lord Chancellor’s Department and rename HMP Prisons without consulting the Palace showed a lack of respect to the Monarchy, the PMOS said that he would reject the premise of the question absolutely. The Prime Minister and Ministers had all made clear their respect for the Royal Family and the Constitution. At the same time, it was important to recognise that public institutions were not immune to change. Equally, people needed to understand that changes could take place without implying any disrespect whatsoever for the Royal Family or the British Constitution.
Asked if it was the case that the Prime Minister, who had obviously been very busy recently, had only just noticed the proposal to rename the CPS, thought it was a very stupid idea and had sent his Official Spokesman out today to ‘execute a swift u-turn’, the PMOS said no. He repeated that a consultation process was taking place. That would continue.
Iraq
Asked if the UK’s Special Representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, had been indicating today that Coalition troops would be have to remain in Iraq for the longer term due to the escalating violence there, the PMOS said that Sir Jeremy had simply been making the point that it was impossible to say with any precision how long they would have to remain there. As Sir Jeremy had said, it was important to recognise that there was a concerted attempt to stop democracy establishing itself in Iraq. We would disagree fundamentally with those who suggested that democracy was an alien concept in Iraq. It wasn’t. The remarkable progress that had been made this week in reaching agreement on the Transitional Law showed that there was a determination amongst those who represented the Iraqi people to try to achieve that transition to democracy within the envisaged timescale. That was not to say, however, that there wouldn’t be further concerted attempts to disrupt that process. Nevertheless, there was a clear determination not to let that happen. Asked if the UK was committed to increasing the ’security consequentials’ if we were going to stick to the timetable, the PMOS said that as we had learned from bitter experience, it was impossible to achieve a 100% level of security. It was easy for people to say that our armed forces should be able to prevent attacks. However, that was simply not a realistic expectation. The reality was that there was a concerted attempt going on to disrupt the process in Iraq and that further attacks, like the ones yesterday, would be inevitable. However, we were determined that such a thing should not be a distraction from the important work that was going on.
US Presidential Election
Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with Senator John Kerry’s assessment that the Bush Administration’s foreign policy was ‘inept, reckless, arrogant and ideological’, the PMOS said that during his press conference last week, the Prime Minister had been invited to comment on the US presidential primaries and had declined to do so. As the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman, he thought that was a very good example to follow. Asked if the Prime Minister had sent his congratulations to Senator Kerry following his successes in yesterday’s Democratic presidential primaries, the PMOS referred journalists to the answer he had just given.
delicious
digg
facebook
