Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Anti Semitic adverts/comments, European Council Meeting, Travellers and Cautioned Minister.
Anti Semitic adverts/comments
Asked if the Prime Minister expected to be challenged by the Board of Deputies this evening about the anti Semitic adverts put up by the Labour Party, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that they were Labour Party posters and it would therefore be inappropriate for him to comment on them.
Asked if that extended to commenting on the Mayor of London’s anti Semitic comments, the PMOS said that as we commented at the time, those remarks were made by the Mayor of London, and it was for him to answer for them, not us.
Put to him that he had made comments at the time of the Mayor’s words, the PMOS said that he had commented about the Prime Minister’s position, and those comments remained.
Asked why he couldn’t comment on the posters, but he could comment about the Mayor of London, the PMOS said he was asked about adverts published by the Labour Party, so he could not comment. With regards to the Mayor’s remarks, we had already said all we had to say on the matter.
European Council Meeting
Asked what the agenda was for the European Council meeting, the PMOS said the items were the Lisbon Agenda, and the Stability and Growth Pact. It was the traditional economic council and those were the issues that would be discussed there.
Asked if the British Government had "bent the rules" with regards to the Growth Pact, the PMOS said that was the journalist’s pejorative way of putting things, which we did not agree with. We had always indicated that we believed that there should be flexibility in the Growth Pact, and it should be reformed to take account of the economic cycle, investment needs, and the sustainability of member state’s debt levels. We welcomed discussions moving in that direction.
Asked if Gordon Brown would be attending, the PMOS said that Finance Ministers were meeting separately.
Asked about the suggestion from Mr. Barroso that we might have to "think again" about Britain’s rebate, the PMOS said it was not on the agenda for this week’s council. We had made our position clear on the rebate, and we stood ready to argue that position, as we had done in the past.
Asked if there was no compromise on that at all, the PMOS said the position had not changed.
Asked if the Prime Minister would mention to Mr. Barroso that we might have a general election, and was he planning to have a talk with Mr. Barroso, the PMOS said he had not noticed that the general election had started! The PMOS also said he did not know whether the Prime Minister would have a chance to talk to Mr. Barroso, nor did he know what the content would be.
Asked if we would be changing our argument regarding the rebate, as it was historically justified on the basis of agricultural subsidy, the PMOS replied that the reason why we believed the rebate was justified was because we compared our contribution to that of France, for example, and there was a disparity. Therefore, if we had to argue the case, then we would do so.
Travellers
Asked why Yvette Cooper was talking about gypsies and travellers in her speech, the PMOS said she would be putting forward what we believed the core of the problem was. It was that there was not a sufficient number of legal sites, therefore the core of the problem was not about having new powers to deal with illegals. We had already developed the Temporary Stop notices that allowed people to stop a camp. The core issue was the number of legal sites. The PMOS said if illegals were moved on, then they had to have somewhere to go.
Asked if, in general, it was fair that laws were applied differently to travellers than those with homes, the PMOS said we were not in favour of that at all. The laws of the land applied to everyone equally. What needed to be recognised, however, was that there had been Temporary Stop notices introduced, and non compliance with those notices meant that a court injunction could be taken out. Failure to comply with a court injunction was a criminal offence that could possibly result in prison. The PMOS said that there was the ability to use the law.
Put to the PMOS that the ODPM’S website showed that the advice to police was that when the cases eventually went to court, the Human Rights Act came into play, and the travellers used the Act to evade any sanctions, the PMOS replied that the law would be applied. In terms of the Human Rights Act, even if it was revised or abolished, there was still the European Convention since consider, as appeals could still go through to Strasbourg. The PMOS asked whether the journalist was suggesting that we left the European Convention, that would leave Britain in an anomalous position in terms of the international respect for law. The key thing was that there was the ability to use he law, and it should be used. Equally, behind that, legal sites had to be provided, as otherwise the problem was only being moved from one place to another.
Asked if the Government would be prepared to drop the incitement for religious hatred, given the pressure to get the legislation through, the PMOS said he thought the question was hypothetical, so he would not answer it.
Cautioned Minister
Asked if the Prime Minister was happy to have a minister in his Government who had been cautioned by the police, the PMOS told people that as Alan Johnson had said yesterday, it was a private matter, and he believed the minister involved was a very good minister.
Put to him that it was not a private matter, but rather, one of public record, the PMOS said again it had been dealt with.
Put to him that being cautioned meant he had broken the law, the PMOS said again that it had been dealt with as a private matter.
Asked what the Prime Minister’s view, the PMOS said the Prime Minister took the advice of his Secretary of State.
delicious
digg
facebook
