Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: North Korea, Deputy Prime Minister, Natwest Three, 7/7 Inquiry and Murdoch Meetings
North Korea
Asked if the Prime Minster had any comment on North Korea’s missile launches, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that we condemned this irresponsible act. The Government of North Korea had launched these missiles despite repeated worldwide pressure not to do so. We viewed this as a deliberately provocative act. We urged North Korea to rejoin the six-party talks with the US, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea and, in the meantime, it was important that the Security Council left North Korea in no doubt about the strength of international concern over their actions.
Deputy Prime Minister
Asked if the Prime Minister still retained full confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said yes. The PMOS had answered this question yesterday and nothing had changed since then. Asked whether the Prime Minister had discussed the Deputy Prime Minister with Sir John Bourne or Sir Gus O’Donnell, the PMOS said, as they all knew, that he did not get into giving the press a running commentary on the Prime Minister’s discussions with officials or colleagues. Journalists should not read into that one way or the other.
Put that the PMOS had previously told the press when the Prime Minister had referred things for investigation, the PMOS said that he was not the spokesman for either gentleman but he would not encourage them down this route. Asked whether the Deputy Prime Minister had offered his resignation at all in the last few months, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. Asked why the Deputy Prime Minister had gone to the ranch of Mr. Anschutz, the PMOS said that the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office had issued a statement on that and he would refer journalists to that.
Asked why the Prime Minister still had full confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister, the PMOS said that, as set out in the appointment letter, John Prescott fulfilled a very valuable role in liaising between members of the Cabinet, in chairing Cabinet committees and in resolving difficult issues, which were inter-departmental. The experience that John Prescott had brought in his time in government gave him a unique role in resolving such matters.
Asked whether the Prime Minster thought it wise for the Deputy Prime Minister to meet Mr. Anschutz, the PMOS said that the important point, as Mr. Prescott’s office had pointed out, was that the Deputy Prime Minister was not involved in deciding the planning application, that was a matter for the council. He was not involved in licensing individual casinos, that was a matter for the gambling commission. It was important that the government spoke to potential inward investors. The Prime Minister believed it was important that his ministers met large investors in this country on a regular basis.
Put that the Deputy Prime Minister had confirmed that they had discussed the post-sale use of the dome, the PMOS reiterated that the important thing was that the Deputy Prime Minister was not involved in the licensing of individual casinos. Put that the Deputy Prime Minister had the overarching role of regeneration and that he had allegedly argued in favour of casinos in Cabinet, the PMOS said that he was not going to get drawn into commenting on such detail, as it was a matter for the ODPM. It was important, however to recognise that the Deputy Prime Minister was not involved in individual planning applications or decisions on individual casinos.
Put that a conflict of interest could arise through indirect influence, the PMOS said that this was venturing into hypothetical territory however thinly it was disguised. Put that on the one hand we were saying that the Deputy Prime Minister was this overarching minister in cabinet committees and on the other he had no influence because it was not in his specific remit, the PMOS said that there was a distinction between resolving policy matters in committees and individual decisions about planning applications, which were decided by councils not by the Deputy Prime Minister. In response to the suggestion that planning applications ultimately went up on appeal to ministers, the PMOS said that he was not aware of any suggestion that this case had done so.
Asked whether the Deputy Prime Minister could recommend a £40 a night hotel in the US, the PMOS suggested that they would need to ask the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office that question. Asked what the Deputy Prime Minister’s agenda for today was, as they were getting no joy at the ODPM, the PMOS suggested that they kept trying. Asked whether any other civil servants had complained about the Deputy Prime Minister’s behaviour, the PMOS said he would not dignify that sort of question with a comment.
Natwest Three
In response to the suggestion that a former US ambassador had said that extraditing the Natwest three was a political decision by the government, as the treaty had not yet been ratified by the US senate, the PMOS said, without commenting on the specific details of the case, that was based on a misconception. This misconception was that we had in some way given a unilateral concession to the United States. That was not true. In the past the US had actually faced a higher threshold of evidence when it had sought to extradite people from the UK when compared to the threshold other countries had to cross, or indeed the threshold the UK had to cross when extraditing people from US to the UK.
The threshold in the past for the US had been "prima facie" evidence, whereas for other countries, and for UK extradition from US, it only needed to be "probable cause". What we had done in 2003 had been very simply to put the US on the same level playing field as everybody else. In other words we had made the standard of evidence that the US needed to produce for UK extradition the same as for Europe and UK extradition from the US. We extradited people from the US on "probable cause" and not "prima facie" evidence. Therefore the extradition threshold was now uniformally "probable cause" not "prima facie" evidence. This brought the US into line with some 50 other countries. The US was not being more favoured that any other country, it was simply now on a level playing field. Therefore the criticism of the US for a change of threshold would have implications for the 50 other countries with that same threshold, not to mention the UK’s own extradition requirements in the US.
Put that the US was not meeting their end of the bargain, the PMOS said that to suggest that was not taking on board the argument he had just outlined. It had in the past been more difficult for the US to extradite someone from the UK that it had been for the UK to extradite someone from the US back to the UK. All we had done was level the playing field. So it terms of reciprocity it was us who had stopped being unfair.
In response to the suggestion that there was no need for the US to ratify the treaty, the PMOS that in fact the UK had yet to ratify the treaty. We had introduced domestic legislation to level the playing field. The ratification of the treaty would streamline the process and extend the range of offences. Ratification was not relevant in this situation as it was about the equality of evidence required by both sides. Of course we wanted ratification to occur and it would be ratified here when it was ratified in the US.
7/7 Inquiry
Put that a 7/7 inquiry would allow lessons to be learned on intelligence gathering methods, the PMOS said we had already had that type of inquiry carried out by the independent Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) therefore those lessons had already been explored and learned. The question people needed to ask was whether we diverted police resources when there were 70 ongoing terror related investigations being carried out. We believed that we should not divert those resources. Put that the police had been able to deploy 250 officers to Forest Gate, the PMOS said that suggestion was facile. The officers that were deployed to Forrest Gate were not the officers that would be diverted into an inquiry. It would be the senior officers who were directing the 70 terror investigations and senior members of our intelligence community. This was serious stuff and that suggestion was oversimplifying the situation to say the least.
We recognised fully the anxieties and concerns of the families, which was why Tessa Jowell and the Home Secretary had been meeting the families individually. We recognised that when they saw the various inaccurate media reports, as the Prime Minister had said yesterday, that concerns arose but we believed the best way to deal with those real and legitimate concerns was to talk to people and address them individually rather than invite upon the system the full costs and pressure in terms of time, resources and diversion that a public inquiry would when we continued to face the serious threat we did.
Murdoch Meetings
Asked if plans had changed on publishing details of meetings with Rupert Murdoch, the PMOS said that this was still a matter of ongoing discussion with the Information Commissioner.
delicious
digg
facebook
