Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Budget, Robert McCartney murder and Abortion.
Budget
Asked if the Prime Minister had held talks today with the Chancellor about the Budget, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that as he had said yesterday, all the usual preliminary meetings had been taking place, and there was nothing out of the ordinary.
Robert McCartney murder
Asked what the Government’s view was on Martin McGuiness’ words about the McCartney family, and also how they were being treated by the Americans during their trip, the PMOS said the important thing all the way through this was how the family had chosen their own words to express themselves, and that they had remained an independent voice. It was important therefore, that we respected that, and to let their voice be heard, because what they were asking for was what any family was entitled to ask for, which was justice. We should listen to the McCartney family, as they had been very resilient and very strong in ensuring that their voice was heard, and that they were seen to speak for themselves.
Asked if Paul Murphy or any other Northern Ireland ministers had meetings with the family, the PMOS replied that for the same reasons he had just set out, the PMOS said he was not aware of any such meetings.
Put to him that it was being suggested that they were getting involved in party politics, should people be "puzzled" by that, the PMOS replied that the family had today produced their own best answer to the question: nobody could manipulate them, and people should listen to what was a family simply asking for those who killed their brother to be held to account.
Put to the PMOS that a Northern Ireland Minister, Ian Pearson, had told the BBC that the IRA was the "most sophisticated criminal organisation in the world" and did the Prime Minister agree with that, the PMOS said he had not seen the quote. However, what we had never underestimated was the degree of sophistication of the IRA. The key question was therefore, how a situation could be brought about in which IRA activities, including criminal activities came to an end. That had been the goal of the approach that we had been taking.
Asked how the Government reconciled one of the most sophisticated criminal organisations in the world with the murder of a man in a public street, and how was that "squared", the PMOS replied that what was important about what was happening was that the demand for justice was being led by people from within the Republican community. What was important was that there was now a united voice that stretched across the Atlantic, on both sides of the Irish border, and the Irish Sea that said the IRA must stop its activity. That was a unique situation, but we should keep separate that overall demand from the very specific demand from the McCartney family for justice for their brother. The PMOS said that of course there would be linkages, but it was equally important that the family were seen to have their own agenda and that nobody should try to manipulate or abuse it.
Asked if the Robert McCartney murder was one of evidence versus intelligence, as the police had said they knew who had killed him, and were the people who killed him therefore not classic cases for control orders, the PMOS said that in terms of control orders, they were applied to people who were believed to be about to carry out a terrorist act, not someone who was believed to have carried out a murder.
The PMOS was interrupted and asked what was the difference between a terrorist murder and a murder, the PMOS said the journalist was missing the first point, which was about future terrorist activity, not a past murder. The other fact was that the Chief Constable in the Police Service of Northern Ireland had said that he did not believe that the murder of Robert McCartney was an IRA murder as such. It had been alleged that it was carried out by IRA members, but was not an IRA ordered murder.
Put to the PMOS that the clean-up was an IRA clean-up, and the intimidation of witnesses were IRA intimidations, and were some very fine hairs not being split, the PMOS said that what we were trying to do was not only use the control orders in a way that were designed to prevent terrorism, but also as much as possible, use the proper rules of evidence. What needed to happen in the McCartney murder case was that those who were in the pub who witnessed the incident came forward and gave evidence in the proper way.
Put to him that the murder and the clean up were so well organised that did anyone now doubt that the perpetrators would not become future terrorists, the PMOS replied that in all of this, we had to be guided by the advice of the police.
Abortion
Asked if the Prime Minister felt there was no need to either change the law or to debate the current 24-week time limit on abortion, the PMOS reiterated the position he set out this morning. On 7th July 2004, the Prime Minister was asked a question during PMQs, and he said then that abortion had always been a matter for the individual conscience, and for a free vote in the House. The Prime Minister recognised that there would be a debate, including the issue mentioned, but he believed that debate should be carried out in a calm, rational and non-partisan way. This was why the Prime Minister believed it would be a pity if this matter did become a party political or general election issue. The Prime Minster felt that this country in the past had debated the matter in a mature and rational manner, and if people wanted a debate, then it would of course happen. It should not, however, happen in a party political or partisan way.
Asked again whether the Prime Minister felt the law should be changed, the PMOS said that because it was an individual matter, it was therefore up to others to decide whether they thought there was a case for change. As the Prime Minister said in the "Cosmopolitan" magazine article carried out 7 or 8 weeks ago, there was a time beyond which someone could not have an abortion, and we had no plans to change that, although the debate would continue.
Asked if the Prime Minister was "having a go" at the Cardinal, the PMOS replied: no. As the PMOS had said this morning, we recognised that the Catholic Church had a position on this, and they were perfectly entitled to reiterate that view as and when they felt it was right to do so. In terms of the Archbishop’s comments in general in his letter, they covered a multitude of subjects, not just the single issue of abortion.
Put to him that the "multitude of subjects" seemed to say that the Labour Party could no longer claim to represent the poorest people in society, and that was why the Cardinal thought that those people might not vote for Labour, the PMOS said he could not get involved in the party political aspect of it. In terms of the Government’s policies, however, whether people were discussing pension credit, or the minimum wage, for example, the Government had done a lot for poverty. People should look at the poverty reduction figures to see the improvement. The Cardinal was entitled to express his feelings, and we were not saying that he should not. However, on the particular issue of abortion, the Prime Minster’s view was that because there were different views across Parliament, it would be unwise and a pity if that became a party political and partisan issue.
Euro
Asked if the Prime Minister was "giving up" on the Euro, or did he except annual assessments to be made, the PMOS said that in terms of the Euro, the Prime Minister had not given up. However, as the Prime Minister had always said, the economic conditions had to be right and therefore, the position had not changed.
delicious
digg
facebook
