Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Announcements, Leo Blair, Ruth Kelly and Education Bill
Announcements
Asked if David Miliband was for or against empowering the state, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) replied that David Miliband was for empowering.
Asked if we were "burying bad news" by putting two controversial items on the same morning, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman said: no. If the journalist was referring to the report on Sex Offenders, that was when we were able to put the report together. It was important that did it as soon as possible.
Asked if cannabis was likely to be buried as a result of the Sex Offenders report coming out on the same morning, the PMOS said it would better to find out whether there was going to be a report on cannabis tomorrow. People should talk to the Home Office.
Asked why there was going to be a review tomorrow on cannabis, the PMOS said there had been a review going on, but whether the announcement would be tomorrow or not, it was a matter for the Home Office to decide.
Leo Blair
Asked when the Prime Minister had been told about a plot concerning Leo Blair, the PMOS said we did not talk about security matters, and that this story illustrated precisely why we were wise not to talk about security matters.
Asked if there had been any review of security as a result, the PMOS said again that we did not talk about security matters.
Put that the PMOS’ words about being wise not to talk about security actually gave some credence to the story, the PMOS said it was simply a statement of fact.
Asked why was it wise not to talk about security, the PMOS replied there were, as we had always said, real life security concerns, and we had to address those. The best way to address them was by not talking about them.
Put that the Prime Minister had already been challenged by Fathers4Justice, and was he concerned about the way in which people were able to breach security, and was it a feeling generally that people were taking protests beyond disruptive stunts to something that threatened security, the PMOS said that in general, as we had said in the past, the Prime Minister’s view was that people did have a right to peaceful protests. It must be peaceful, however, and the overwhelming public view was that people harm their causes by engaging in protests that were not peaceful.
That had been our approach to groups like this one all the way through. In terms of specifics of what groups may or may not get up to out side the peaceful protest area, that was a matter for the police to deal with, and we were quite content to leave it up to them.
Put that the Prime Minister had said before that access for fathers was an issue that had to be looked at further, and was there anything further at the moment, the PMOS replied that nothing had changed in this area at the moment.
Put that Fathers4Justice had always been seen as "pranksters", and was there now likely to be a change in police attitude to them, the PMOS said he did not agree, as the whilst the media view may have been that they were "pranksters", but the authorities’ view was that people who broke not only the rules, but also the law were treated a certain way, no matter who they were. That was entirely appropriate that they should be.
Asked if the police were therefore likely to adopt a more positive approach to people like Fathers4Justice, the PMOS replied that these were operational decisions for the police, and we were quite content to leave it up to them to deal with.
Asked if the Prime Minister’s opinion of the CSA was still the same as it was a few months ago when he said it was "not up to the job", the PMOS replied that his view was that we did need to look seriously at the role of the CSA and see whether, as currently constituted, it was fit for the purpose. That process was going on, and John Hutton and the DWP were involved in it.
Asked when the DWP’s outcome on the role of the CSA might be expected, the PMOS said that there was urgent work going on, but the PMOS said it was up to the DWP to announce when they were ready.
Ruth Kelly
Asked to comment on the story on page 4 of The Times about sex offenders, the PMOS replied that rather than relying on reports in The Times, instead, people should wait for the full report from Ruth Kelly tomorrow.
Asked it was still the understanding that Ruth Kelly would be able to give precise numbers of cases, the PMOS said it was better to leave the statement until tomorrow, as it was not wise to preview it.
Education Bill
Asked for further timings on the Education Bill, the PMOS said that it would be published in February, and would be put to the vote sometime in March.
Asked if the Prime Minister was involved in various discussions with Ministers about the content of the Bill, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister had been throughout, and would be in the future. We did not give a running commentary on close discussions.
Asked was there any concern about the publicly expressed concerns given by people like Estelle Morris, Nick Raynsford, or Neil Kinnock about some of the aspects of the Bill that it would be more difficult for Ruth Kelly to drive through, given the recent controversy, the PMOS said people had set out their views. Last week’s NAO report had clearly illustrated the progress being made in Education, but it also illustrated why the status quo was not an option. We had to learn from what had worked in the past, and to keep developing it. What worked was if schools had an ethos which was theirs, and theirs to develop.
Equally, there was the freedom to make the kind of decisions that were necessary to develop schools and for good schools to help failing schools. What was also important was that we moved forward on the discipline front, with the measures that were contained in the Bill too. There were all sorts of reasons why we believed that this Bill helped forward the momentum. The PMOS said that the underlying message from last week was that the status quo was not an option.
delicious
digg
facebook
