Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Natwest Three, Sentencing, Afghanistan, Hoodies and John Prescott
NatWest Three
Asked what talks were being held regarding the NatWest Three, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) told journalists that there were two things to be distinguished. The first was the extradition arrangements with the US, and as the PMOS had explained in some detail last week, what we had to understand was that the 2003 Act stopped the process whereby in effect, we discriminated against the US by having a higher burden of proof that the US had to meet than 50 other countries that we had extradition arrangements with. The 2003 Act brought us into line in our relations with the US with the relationship that we had with 50 other countries, including Council of Europe countries, New Zealand and Australia. There was also the matter of the Treaty, which neither country had ratified at this stage. The PMOS said that we remained anxious to push that process forward, and that had been an ongoing matter of discussion between us and the American authorities. The PMOS said there was no doubt at all that that would be reflected in Margaret Beckett’s discussions, and as she had said today, Baroness Scotland was planning to go to America at some stage.
Asked if the focus was on getting the US to ratify, the PMOS said that what had to be made clear, as there was some confusion, was that much of the reporting had suggested that in some way, we were trying to discriminate in favour of the US. It was actually the reverse. We ended a process whereby the US was discriminated against, because up until the 2003 Act came into effect, we were demanding prima facie evidence, uniquely from the US, whereas, in terms of 50 other countries, all we had done was bring the US into line with them. The extradition treaty, however, extended and updated the range of offences for extradition to bring it into line with developments such as internet fraud etc. That was why we wanted the extradition treaty, but in terms of the extradition level of proof, we stood absolutely where we were, which was that the 2003 Act effectively ended the process of discrimination against the States.
Put that in the case of the other 52 states, there was reciprocity in terms of the level of proof, that PMOS said it was the same as the US.
Put that it was not the same, as the treaty had not been active, the PMOS said that was not the case. The PMOS said that before the 2003 Act, we demanded of the US, a higher level of evidence than the US demanded of us. They demanded of us what was our established relationship with other countries, which was probable cause. We demanded of the US prima facie evidence, which was a higher level of proof. What the 2003 Act did was to bring the two into level, which was the same level as our extradition agreements with other countries. The US level of proof was the same as that of the 50 other countries. The reciprocity talked about was at the level of the treaty, which was different offences, etc, and that was why we wanted to ratify the treaty. In terms of the burden of proof, it was best not to confuse the two.
Asked that even if there was reciprocity, that would make no difference to the NatWest Three case, the PMOS said that he did not want to comment on the individual case, as the High Court had ruled in favour of extradition. In general however, it did not make any difference to the burden of proof argument, because as things stood, the question was: should the US be discriminated against uniquely, or not? It was as simple as that. Should a higher burden of proof be demanded of the US than for any other country?
Asked to clarify that the UK could extradite from the US on probable cause on a full range of cases, the PMOS said yes, and had always been able to do so. Uniquely, we had demanded for historical reasons of the US, prima facie evidence. What the 2003 Act did was to bring the two together.
Asked why the Prime Minister had become involved with this case, as he had not intervened before in previous cases with bail conditions, the PMOS replied that we recognised the legitimate concern that in these kinds of cases, because the trial preparations were complex, they took a long time. If people were going to be held in custody for that period of time, because they were foreigners, that would be treating them differently than if they were US citizens. What we wanted to ensure was that the treatment was the same.
Asked what the process for ratification in the UK was, the PMOS said that it was a normal Parliamentary process.
Asked if we were preparing to that, the PMOS replied that these were discussions that had been going on for some time, and they should be allowed to continue. We were prepared to do what we had to do, but as part of a co-ordinated process.
Put that the treaty had specified some new offences, it therefore had nothing to do with the NatWest Three, the PMOS said that he did not want to talk about the particular case, as it would be wrong to do so. There had been some confusion between the burden of proof argument, and what the treaty did, and why the burden of proof was changed.
Asked about any impact this might have on the Lords, the PMOS said that it was not for him to speak for the Lords; he was not sure what would happen to him if he did, but the words "Tower of London" sprang to mind! The PMOS said that the point was of course it was important that we tried to get the treaty ratified, and it was important, and it would ease the understanding that people had. What people should not confuse was the central argument about the burden of proof.
Asked if the central area of UK Government focus concerned purely bail conditions under which people might be kept, the PMOS said that that was the issue which the Prime Minister had highlighted last week. We also wanted to see this treaty ratified, because it was important that we updated our extradition arrangements to take account of modern technology, etc. Again, in terms of the individual case, there was a genuine concern about it.
Asked that if the treaty was ratified by both sides, there would be no impact on any burden of proof, the PMOS said that was his understanding.
Sentencing
Put that a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister seemed to agree that the sentence given to Craig Sweeney was out of kilter with the public views, and yet the Attorney General was planning to rule that the sentence would stand, the PMOS said that the time to ask would be after the Attorney General had spoken, and not beforehand.
Afghanistan
Put by the BBC’s political editor that there was an inconsistency between today’s announcement regarding troops to Afghanistan and Downing Street pouring cold water at the end of last week, the PMOS said that in the spirit of equal honesty, the question showed a complete disregard of the proper process as outlined at lobby last week. The PMOS made no apology for sticking to that process. The process was that military commanders on the ground, as we said, made an assessment. That assessment was then passed to their superiors in London, and it was then assessed within the MOD, where it was the passed to the Prime Minister who made a decision. It would have been totally wrong for the PMOS to pre-empt any element of that process, and the decisions on this were not taken until the weekend. Therefore, the Defence Secretary would go to the Commons to outline the position. The PMOS said again that he made no apology at all for not engaging in hypothetical speculation, which as people knew, was a sin not to be committed by the PMOS.
Put that was it not a greater sin to give the impression that something was not going to happen, when it actually was going to happen, the PMOS replied that the impression he hoped he had given was that no decisions had been taken, which was correct. The impression the PMOS also gave was that no requests had been passed to Downing Street, at the same time as people were reporting the reverse. It would have been totally wrong to give the impression that the process was further on than it actually was.
Asked if the nature of the mission had changed, the PMOS said that it had not changed at all. There was a danger that reconstruction was no longer seen as not part of the mission, whereas, it was at the centre of the whole mission. One of the most important elements in the mission was reconstruction, and the statement this afternoon would reflect that. What we needed to show people in Helmand province was that our presence there would result in life getting better for them. Part of that was security, but part of it was also providing the economic and physical structure that would allow the economy to start growing.
Asked about the reconstruction progress, the PMOS said the journalist should speak to DFID for more details. However, as Hilary Benn had said this morning, the fact that there were now more schools and hospitals. There were girls being taught in schools, which was against the wishes of the Taliban, which was why they had taken the vicious actions that they had against teachers. The PMOS said that a place was not instantly transformed, as it took time. However, the important thing was that the infrastructure, equipment and personnel was put in place in order to make that change.
Hoodies
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that we should be "hugging hoodies", the PMOS replied that the journalist was trying to point him in a party political direction, and he would resist. The PMOS said that our policy remained the same, which was that was why the Prime Minister had developed the Respect agenda, SureStart, New Deal etc, and why we also had the anti social behaviour approach. Those were the concepts we believed would tackle the issues of youth crime and behaviour.
Asked if the Prime Minister saw hoodies as aggressive, the PMOS said that he did not want to get involved with comments about what the Leader of the Opposition had said. What the Prime Minister had said at PMQs was that if people appeared to be a threat to others, for example in shopping centres, then it was right for people to voice their concern, but also to take appropriate action.
John Prescott
Asked if Mr. Prescott would still be in charge of the country in a few weeks, the PMOS said that he had answered that same question in the affirmative last week. Nothing had changed.
Asked if wearing a cowboy suit would help him do his job, the PMOS replied that he had not seen the Deputy Prime Minister in a cowboy suit.
Asked if the Prime Minister had discussed Mr. Prescott’s situation with either Sir John Bourne or Sir Gus O’Donnell, the PMOS replied that nothing had changed on that since last week.
Asked by the Evening Standard if the cowboy suit story was true, the PMOS said that the journalist could ask, but he was not the spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister, and could only go on personal experience, which he had just reflected.
delicious
digg
facebook
