Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Northern Ireland, Sex Offenders, Iran and Smoking.
Northern Ireland
Asked if the Prime Minister was involved with the “On the Runs” legislation and whether the RUC widow meeting had been the decisive factor in persuading us to drop the bill, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) replied that in terms of the Prime Minister’s involvement, of course he was involved in the decision. With regards to the RUC Widows meeting, the Prime Minister explained at the time of the meeting that he was fully aware of their views and the pain that was caused not just to them, but also to other victims of the IRA by going through the legislation.
Firstly, however, there was the anomaly of the position of prisoners who had been dealt with after the Good Friday Agreement, and those who were wanted, but had not served time. Secondly, there had been commitments made as part of the negotiations. However, given that Sinn Fein had dropped its support for legislation, and said that it would not support anyone going through the system, it clearly became pointless to have a system that nobody was going to use. Also, to go through the pain of putting through legislation which was going to cause offence to many people if nobody was going to use the system was also pointless. In short, the Government was prepared to put the legislation through, but there was no point in keeping going if nobody was going to use it at this stage.
Asked if we expected it to come back in the Autumn, the PMOS said he did not expect this legislation to come back, per se, but rather, the issue in some way was going to have to be dealt with because that anomaly was there, and it would manifest itself in different ways at different times. It would be dealt with at some stage, but it was not an immediate priority. As Peter Hain said, the immediate priorities were to make progress following the IMC report on the issue of devolution, and on getting unambiguous support for policing.
Sex Offenders
Asked if the Prime Minister had had a full briefing from Ruth Kelly on the circumstances surrounding whether teachers were on or off List 99, the PMOS replied that Ruth Kelly had issued a statement that said that the procedure involved in this was one that, as the PMOS understood it, went back many years, and predated the current administration. Clearly, procedures, and public expectations around the issue of child protection had changed a lot in recent years, and it was therefore right to have a fundamental review of the process.
This had to be not just in the light of the case that had been highlighted, but also the Bichard Report. That was, to some extent, already happening because of the Bichard Report, but now there would be a fundamental review. The PMOS said that Ruth Kelly would report back on that shortly. Therefore, the Prime Minister was fully satisfied that Ruth Kelly was taking the issue seriously and was looking seriously at the whole question. It was right and proper that we did this in an orderly way which addressed the questions such as: should these, in these days, be decisions that were taken ultimately by Ministers, or should they be taken by the experts in the field.
Asked if the Prime Minister had held a meeting where he had gone through the issue, the PMOS replied that there were the normal contacts between No10 and the department on this issue. The Prime Minister was confident that there would be a proper fundamental review of the processes in cases like this.
Asked if the Prime Minister still had full confidence in Ruth Kelly, the PMOS said: yes. The PMOS told journalists that a number of reports that suggested that Ruth Kelly’s job was in some way in jeopardy were simply wrong, and if people had phoned the PMOS in advance of making such reports, he would have said as much then.
Asked to describe the meeting that took place on Monday between the Prime Minister and Ruth Kelly, the PMOS said it was routine. It had been in the diary since before Christmas, and it was to do with the Education White Paper, and was nothing to do with Ruth Kelly’s future.
Asked if the PMOS was saying that despite the fact that on the front page of some newspapers, and wide reporting on Monday, the case of Paul Reeve in Norwich had not been discussed at the meeting on Monday, the PMOS replied that he was not at the meeting, but he was aware that it was not the subject of the meeting. In terms of the case, the department had been handling the implications of it, and working out what to do. We were fully satisfied that they had approached it in an orderly and thorough way.
Asked if the Prime Minister felt there was a need for greater clarity about the people who were still working in school where it had not been made clear, the PMOS said that the Department were investigating all the circumstances, and it was therefore right and proper that they be given time to do so.
Put that it was unsurprising that there was speculation that Ruth Kelly was going to be moved, as people had been waiting for a Ministerial reshuffle for weeks, but there was a mystery about it, therefore people would speculate, the PMOS replied that he was never surprised that there was speculation about reshuffles. All he was saying was that if people had contacted him in advance of reporting that in some way, Ruth Kelly’s position was in doubt, he would have told them they were wrong, and that remained the case.
Put that every week that passed made the reshuffle situation “curiouser and curiouser” the PMOS said again that the speculation had been wrong, and it was for others to speculate, and he would leave it up to them to do so.
Asked to clarify that although Sir Michael Bichard was informing the review, it actually stemmed from the fact that this case was not going to go away, the PMOS said that there had already been a process of getting a new vetting scheme together. The problem essentially arose because of the ad hoc way in which different data systems had been in operation, and the need to bring those together. That process of amalgamation, as the PMOS understood it, was already under way because of the Bichard report. It had been given added point by this case, and the PMOS said he was not going to try and in any way gut duck that. What Ruth Kelly was quite properly doing was having a good look at the way in which these issues were handled.
Put that the PMOS did not normally tell journalists that certain Minister’s jobs were not on the line doing a reshuffle, and that the Prime Minister had confidence in everyone, therefore, was the PMOS doing something different today, and did the Prime Minister wish it to be known that Ruth Kelly would not be moved in a reshuffle if there was one, the PMOS said he was simply stating the fact so there was no misunderstanding.
Asked again that the Prime Minister wanted Ruth Kelly to remain in Education through this difficult period, the PMOS said: correct.
Asked if it was definite that all these cases were referred to Ministers, or would one possible outcome of the review be that Ministers no longer could make a decision, the PMOS replied that in this day and age, where there were borderline cases, it was legitimate to ask whether, given the level of expertise, and what the Bichard review had said, the best was to refer cases up to Junior Ministers. That was a question that this review would address, as Ruth Kelly had said.
Asked to clarify which Junior Minister had taken the decision, the PMOS said he was not going to comment.
Asked how many other people were involved at this stage, the PMOS said he did not have a number at this stage. The whole point of looking back through the files was to find out, but the Department believed the number was small.
Put that given everyone who volunteered to help in sport, Sunday schools etc had to go through a CRB check, was it not a disincentive to discover that the Government knew about people who may or may not have been on a list, the PMOS replied that there were very complicated difficult issues at the heart of this situation. That was partly why it was better to take time and do a review properly and fundamentally.
Asked for further information about the cases and the review, the PMOS said he was not going to give a running commentary on it. It was better that it happened, and Ruth Kelly would make a comprehensive statement on it.
Iran
Asked how did the Prime Minister feel about Germany not being willing to report Iran to the Security Council, the PMOS replied that first of all, people should wait for the official position of Germany and then we would respond.
Asked if the PMOS was saying that the words of the Deputy Foreign Minister were not official, the PMOS said he was not aware of them, and it was better that people got the official confirmation, and we would respond accordingly.
Asked if it was the position that we would like to refer to the Security Council, the PMOS said that we believed that there was a case for referral, and that had been our position all the way along. Tomorrow, the E3 Minister would meet, and after that, we believed that there should be an IAEA board meeting. Out of that, we would see what would happen. We had our position, others would have theirs, and there would be a proper debate.
Asked if we were acting exclusively through the EU on this, the PMOS replied that we were part of the E3, and that meant that the case would be made to the Board.
Asked if the Prime Minister saying he was “not ruling anything out” meant a shift in position, the PMOS said: no. People should deal with where we were, which was there was a process in play. We should therefore take that process and push it through. What there was not, however, in any way, and the Prime Minister’s words at PMQs underlined this, was any attempt to downplay the seriousness of this situation. This had been something which the Prime Minister had gone out of his way to talk about and to underline the seriousness with which he viewed the situation. That remained the case.
Put that the Prime Minister was “strikingly more cautious” in his language than he was at the Hampton Court press conference, for example, and was that ironically because the situation was now more serious, the PMOS said he thought that was a fair interpretation.
Asked if that was a right interpretation as well as fair, the PMOS said that at Hampton Court, the Prime Minister was issuing a wake-up call. Now, we were where we were, and we needed to persuade others to take a course of action. What did not help in persuading others to take a course of action was if there was a constant running commentary, but there should be no doubt that the Prime Minister believed even more firmly today that this was an issue that the whole international community had to, and was, facing up to.
Smoking
Put that the Government had said it was sticking by its manifesto commitment on smoking, but there now appeared to be a situation in which the Minister in charge of the policy had said she would vote against the line laid don in the manifesto, and was that a good way to run a government, the PMOS said that he thought that was not the position. The position was that the Government’s manifesto was committed to putting in place a 95% ban. That remained the position of the Government, and the Government remained committed to, at its lowest level, that there should be a 95% ban.
However, following consultation, it was clear that the public mood was in a different place, and it was also clear that the industry had real concerns about enforcing a 95% ban. Equally, there were different opinions amongst MPs and Ministers, so therefore, the right thing to do was to give MPs on this one-off issue a free vote.
Asked should that not have been sorted out before the manifesto was written, the PMOS said he was not going to speak about the process of the manifesto as it was a Party matter. However, in terms of Government policy, where there were clear concerns identified on issues on which there were conflicting demands and rights, it was proper to allow a free vote.
Asked what consultation had taken place, the PMOS said that there had been a consultation process launched by the Department of Health.
Asked if that had been between the announcement of the partial ban, the PMOS said there had been a consultation with the industry, and the industry had highlighted their concerns about trying to separate through the non-food areas.
Asked about the public mood, the PMOS said that in terms of the public mood, people had been able to track though opinion polls and other means, where the public mood on this issue was. In terms of the industry, there had been clear concerns expressed.
Asked if human rights had been an issue, the PMOS replied that as he had said this morning, there had been various reports and concerns raised, and he was not aware that the human rights report was a particular factor. There had been other reports that had helped shape this outcome.
delicious
digg
facebook
