Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Iraq, Religious Hatred Bill, Stephen Byers and Sir Ian Blair
Iraq
Put to the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) that he had seemed to suggest people should not hype the hundredth British casualty in Iraq, the PMOS responded categorically that he had not said that. He had said 4 four times throughout his morning briefing that the Prime Minister was first and foremost deeply saddened by the death and that one death was one death too many. The specific question he had been asked was about the tactical implications of this particular attack. He had responded to that question by refusing to get involved in speculating about terrorist tactics because he believed, as experience had proven, that speculation about terrorist tactics only feeds terrorism. It did not do us any good and it was only those on the ground that had the knowledge to actually answer such questions. This was why he had talked about the need not to hype. He repeated, for clarity, that he had said four times during the morning briefing that the Prime Minister was deeply saddened by the death and that one death was one death too many.
Put to him that John Reid had said in his statement that it was an appropriate moment to mark the deaths, the PMOS said this was precisely why, as had been widely reported, he had said that the Prime Minister was deeply saddened by the death. It was wrong to and people should not confuse talking about this tragic death with speculating about terrorist tactics. It was wrong to get drawn into that kind of speculation because it was not for him or anyone to second-guess the views of operational commanders on the ground as he had said this morning.
Put to him that he had said he did do not think we should do the terrorists job for them by hyping this kind of incident, the PMOS read out the extract from the morning’s briefing note: "Asked if we were not concerned by the tactical implications of this particular attack, given that it had taken place in an area which had previously been secure, the PMOS said that we should not do the terrorist’s job for them by over-hyping this kind of incident." What he had clearly been referring to there was the tactical implications as asked in the question. He had then said immediately after giving that answer that "we should recognise that any death was deeply sad and deeply regretted." This was something he had said four times this morning so there should be no misunderstanding.
Asked if the name would be released, the PMOS said that was entirely a matter for the MOD to disclose after they had gone through all the appropriate procedures to notify next of kin and to notify the relatives of those that had also been injured. The next of kin of L/Cpl Douglas had been informed before his name had been released, which was standard procedure. Asked how worried the British Government was about the role of Iran and it’s involvement in roadside explosive devices in Iraq, the PMOS firstly acknowledged that it was a legitimate question, but went on to say that he was not aware of anything that suggested their involvement in this or yesterday’s attacks at this stage. In general terms the concern had been raised and it was a matter that continued to be addressed.
Asked what the answer was to the suggestion that the British presence was part of the problem in Iraq, the PMOS said that the views of the Iraqi government were what mattered in this regard. The elected Iraqi government wished us to remain. One death was one too many, never mind one hundred, but it was important that people did not lose sight of what had been achieved in Iraq. In a country that had been brutalised for decades we now had seen three free elections. We now had democratically elected groups negotiating to form a new government. Nobody underestimated the challenges and nobody underestimated the continued real problems that our forces faced there, but equally we should not underestimate what had been achieved there so far.
Asked whether the Prime Minister thought the security situation was improving, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had been briefed by MNFI commanders about the security situation when he had visited Basra just before Christmas and the security forces on the ground there had been talking about how the process of Iraqi-isation and training of Iraq’s forces was proceeding well. We had always recognised however that there were real threats to our forces in Iraq and unfortunately the last 24 hours had sadly reminded us all of that, again. In terms of the overall political picture real progress was being made.
Religious Hatred Bill
Asked if the Prime Minster would be voting on the Bill and why he thought it was so important to push through the legislation on threatening or abusive behaviour, the PMOS said he was not sure whether the Prime Minster’s schedule would allow him to vote. The reason it was important was because people had identified a gap in the law where it was illegal to say things that incited hatred against Sikhs and Jews but it was not illegal against other religions. As people like Saddiq Khan had exemplified there were cases where groups had knowingly exploited that loophole. Paul Goggins had made clear today that we did not intend for this to be used against those who criticised or made fun of religions. There was, however, a genuine problem with people exploiting the loophole to incite hatred against certain groups such as Muslims.
Put to him that critics argued that it was not that it was the intent but rather the interpretation of the letter of the law and on that basis it was too wide ranging, the PMOS said it was to address such points that the changes suggested had been made. It was equally important that those who were critical recognised that there was a real problem that needed to be addressed. This was not being done for the sake of it, but because of that real problem, not least because some religions were more protected than others. The Government believed such a differentiation was wrong.
Stephen Byers
Asked if Stephen Byers was the sort of chap that the Prime Minister would like to see back in his Cabinet, the PMOS said that was a reshuffle question so he did not have to answer it. Asked whether the Prime Minister liked Stephen Byers, the PMOS said that the Prime Minster had spoken about Stephen Byers in the past and journalists were capable of looking that up for themselves. Asked if the Prime Minister had any view on the report by the Parliamentary Standard’s Committee, the PMOS said the Prime Minister had spoken in the past about the importance of people giving truthful answers, but in terms of the report it was a matter for parliament so he would not comment on it specifically.
Sir Ian Blair
Asked what the Prime Minister thought about reports that 114 senior police officers had lost confidence in Sir Ian Blair and what he thought about an early day motion calling for the Home Secretary to sack Sir Ian Blair, the PMOS suggested that it must only have been the shortage of space that had stopped the reporter from saying these were anonymous reports suggesting that. The Prime Minister had no wish in any way to intervene in any speculation surrounding the Independent Police Complaints Commission report (IPCC). The PMOS emphasised that most strongly. However the Prime Minister recognised that the job of Met Commissioner was not only a very important one but also a highly difficult one and the Prime Minister supported Sir Ian Blair in carrying out that job.
Asked if the Prime Minster had full confidence in Sir Ian Blair, the PMOS suggested that the phrase "full confidence, by tradition, only applied to Cabinet Ministers. Put to him that Sir John Stevens had managed to avoid the sort of blunders and scrapes that Sir Ian Blair found himself dealing with, the PMOS said that events were always different but he suspected that Sir John Stevens would disagree that he had not faced difficult times, just as any Met Commissioner faced challenging times. It was that kind of job. He did not want in any way to intervene in the IPCC report, but equally it was wrong for anybody to think that the Prime Minister in anyway was anything but fully understanding of the difficulties of the job of being Met Commissioner.
delicious
digg
facebook
