Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Alcohol Abuse, Iraq, Middle East, Parliament Security and Simon Stevens.
Alcohol Abuse
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister and Hazel Blears would attend an alcohol abuse event this afternoon. Alcohol abuse was an issue to which the Prime Minister attached great importance. As the recent Crime Survey had underlined, binge drinking had now become a major problem. The Survey showed that 44% of victims of crime thought that their assailant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the attack. Other figures showed that around 70% of weekend night admissions to Casualty were due to alcohol. Binge drinking had now clearly become one of the significant causes of crime. That was why the Prime Minister would be attending today’s industry-organised seminar where he would make a speech to discuss the National Alcohol Strategy. He would say, "Millions of people drink alcohol responsibly every day. No one wants to stop that pleasure. But there is a clear and growing problem on our town and city centre streets up and down the country on Friday and Saturday nights. At a time when overall crime is falling, alcohol related violent crime is rising. New powers are there. They need to be used. As a society we must make sure that binge drinking does not become the new British Disease".
Asked for an update on the Government’s plans for twenty-four hour drinking, the PMOS referred journalists to the Licensing Act which would deal with issues regarding opening hours and the like.
Asked what the Prime Minister wanted the drinks industry to do about alcohol abuse, the PMOS said that we were launching a consultation process in which we would consider ways that industry could help. One proposal was the establishment of a Voluntary Responsibility Scheme where industry could perhaps make a financial contribution towards meeting the costs of alcohol misuse. This would be paid into local funds which would be collected and managed by local authorities, with councils at an individual authority level covering their costs through contributions received. The money could be used to cover costs for additional Community Support Officers, additional cleaning, additional bus services, or setting up Pub Watch scheme. Details were still at the consultation stage and had yet to be developed, but those were examples of some of the issues being considered.
Asked why the industry should be taxed for the behaviour of individuals, the PMOS said the Prime Minister believed that we all had a part to play in educating people in how to drink alcohol responsibly. Obviously he did not want to stop people enjoying a drink. However, he wanted them to be aware of the damage that alcohol-related crime was doing to society as a whole. That was why he believed it was important to do something to tackle the problem collectively. This would involve the Government, individuals, and industry all playing a part.
Asked if the Government was planning to review its drinking guidelines to prevent binge drinking, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. He pointed out that those who engaged in binge drinking deliberately flouted the guidelines in any event. Asked if the Government would launch a publicity drive to highlight the guidelines, the PMOS said that the Government consistently publicised what the guidelines were. In our view, the industry also needed to take part-ownership of the education process on binge drinking.
Iraq
Asked if the Prime Minister continued to believe that it was best to discuss any differences he had with the US in private, the PMOS underlined that we would stay in Iraq because we wanted to see a stable democracy, which we believed would also have a beneficial effect on stability in the region as a whole. This was a goal which was shared by our Coalition partners, including the US. Despite all the difficulties, we would continue to work with them to achieve our objectives. Consequently, the question was what was the best way to do that. Was it by discussing what we should be doing in public by using megaphone diplomacy, shouting from the margins or scoring people’s performances from the sidelines, or should we be discussing the way forward together and working out a common strategy. We believed the latter option was the best way to proceed, not least, as the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary had all underlined at Cabinet today, because of the impact any apparent disagreements would have on the troops who were carrying out their jobs side by side on the ground.
Asked for a reaction to the Leader of the Opposition’s point this morning that both Colin Powell, and even Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, had no problem in voicing their disagreements with the US President in public, the PMOS said that as a Civil Servant he was unable to comment directly on what the Opposition Leader had said. As a general point, however, he would draw journalists’ attention to Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s remarks this morning in which he had noted that he had never seen two different countries’ systems working together as closely as the UK and US had worked in Iraq. In facing the difficult challenges in Iraq, it was inevitable that different options had to be considered at different times. This was true both within the British system, as well as the US system. The question was therefore what was the most effective way to decide what the best option was when there were difficult decisions to be taken. Should that be done in the full glare of publicity or was it better to come to a coherent agreed strategy and work towards that instead. The Prime Minister remained firmly of the view that it was better to arrive at an agreed strategy and work not only with our Coalition partners to achieve it but also with the emerging Iraq Interim Authority, after Lakhdar Brahimi’s report, in order to achieve our common objective - which was not to advance British or US diplomacy, but the common aim of a stable Iraqi democracy.
Asked what the Government was intending to do about the fact that the US had taken over the running of the show in Iraq, not very well and without proper consultation with the UK, the PMOS said that he would disagree with the premise of the question. He would advise journalists to listen again to Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s interview on the Today Programme this morning in which he had set out the actual position, rather than base their ‘facts’ on rumour and conjecture. He pointed out that both UK Government and the US Administration were going in the same direction as we worked towards the 30 June transfer of sovereignty. This was a position which we were not only comfortable with but fully supported. The important thing was to continue to work together coherently and in a co-ordinated manner. That was precisely what the Prime Minister was trying to do.
In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that it was in the interests of the UK, the US, the Coalition and, above all, the Iraqi people to achieve a successful transition of sovereignty on 30 June, to build on it and work towards free elections in January 2005. It was also in everyone’s interest to maintain a stable security situation as much as we could while we increased the capacity of the Iraqi security system to deal with threats to its existence. That was our priority, and it was why we believed it was essential for us to work closely with our Coalition partners, as well as send a message to our troops that we were united behind their efforts on the ground.
Asked if the British and US advisers, who were currently working alongside the Iraqi Governing Council, would continue in their jobs working with the Interim Authority after 30 June, the PMOS said that that would depend on the proposals put forward by Mr Brahimi. It would also depend on the views of the interim Authority. Mr Brahimi was due to present his report at the end of the month. It would not be helpful to pre-empt his conclusions.
Asked for a reaction to Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s suggestion this morning that the push towards ‘Iraqi-isation’ had come a little late, the PMOS said we acknowledged that there were questions relating to capacity which needed to be addressed. The important point was the direction in which we were going in terms of Iraqi-isation. We believed it was the right way forward.
Asked where we were on a new UN Security Council Resolution, the PMOS said that there were a number of tracks which were running in parallel, one of which was the impending 30 June deadline, the other of which was the process of choosing the Iraq Interim Authority. Mr Brahimi was due to present his report on this issue at the end of the month. A Resolution would not be possible until he had done so.
Asked if the Prime Minister would agree that troop morale was less important than making substantive policy mistakes in Iraq, the PMOS said he would have thought that maintaining morale was not only right in itself, but also an important way to avoid making mistakes in Iraq in the first place. The two were not mutually exclusive. In facing up to the unique challenges in Iraq, it was inevitable that mistakes would be made. The important thing was to learn from them and maintain an overall coherent policy, which was precisely what we were trying to do.
Middle East
Asked what the Prime Minister was doing publicly to condemn the actions of the Israelis in Rafah, the PMOS said that the UK had voted in favour of the motion at the UN last night which had underlined that all violence must stop, and had also condemned the killing of Palestinian civilians in the Rafah area. It had also called on Israel to respect its obligations under international law, in particular in not undertaking the demolition of houses. It had also called on both parties immediately to implement their obligations under the terms of the roadmap. Asked if the Prime Minister had used his influence with President Bush to ask him to use his lever over the Israelis to call a halt to the violence, the PMOS said that the President was fully aware of our view, as were the Israelis.
Parliamentary Security
Asked the Prime Minister’s view this morning about the state of Parliamentary security, the PMOS said the Prime Minister believed that this was a matter for the House. Cabinet had been updated this morning by the Leader of the House on the progress of the ongoing security review. He had said it was gathering pace as a result of yesterday’s incident.
Simon Stevens
Asked if the Prime Minister was disappointed that he was losing ‘yet another’ special adviser, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister valued Simon Stevens highly. The NHS Modernisation Board report had underlined the very real progress that had been made in the health service to deliver real improvements in care to people up and down the country. Many people had made a contribution to that, not least Simon Stevens, who had brought his knowledge of the NHS and his intellectual energy to his work in helping to shape those improvements. He would be replaced by Julian Le Grand.
delicious
digg
facebook
