Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Private Schools, Northern Ireland, Saddam’s Execution and play
Private Schools
Asked if the Prime Minister had a view on Ruth Kelly’s decision to send her child to a private school, the PMOS said that firstly there were rules around children and he would observe those, even if others did not. Secondly the Prime Minister supported absolutely the right of parents to make choices about their children’s’ education which are best suited to those children’s’ needs, irrespective of who their parents were and what job they did.
Asked whether No10 would back a PCC complaint by any government Minister who might have been affected by this, the PMOS replied that he would not be getting into individual decisions for individual people.
Asked if as a matter of principle, the government and Prime Minister had any objections to any Minister or individual opting out of the state system, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister has made it clear on many occasions that he backs the right of parents to make choices in the interest of their children no matter what job they do. Asked if the Ruth Kelly example did not suggest that either the state system was failing children with special needs, or that she had some other reason for opting out, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister and the government as a whole had made it clear that they believe that there should be a mix of provision for children with special needs. For some pupils inclusion in the mainstream system was the answer, and that is what some parents wanted. For others that was not the answer and special schools were needed. The provision of these schools was a local matter to be decided at a local level. He added that the overall view set out many times by the Prime Minister and other Ministers was that there should be a mix of provision.
Asked to defend the 2001 act that said children should usually be educated in mainstream schools which campaigners have said has led to the closure of special needs schools, the PMOS pointed the journalist to the rate of closure which had slowed down under this government compared to previous administrations, adding that the need for a mix of provision had always been made clear.
Asked if he was saying the government was opposed to the principle of moving provision into the state sector given that the rate had slowed down, the PMOS replied that he was not and added that there had never been a policy of specialist school closures. He added that it had always been recognised that parents of children special needs should be able to request special school provision. Local authorities had been told that closures should only take place where they could clearly show that something better had been planned in their place. But it was a matter for local decision.
Asked if it was his understanding that Ruth Kelly would make a statement today, the PMOS replied that he would not get drawn on anything that would in any way identify the Minister involved. In overall terms it was a matter for Ministers to decide when they make statements.
Northern Ireland
Asked if the Prime Minister would be meeting with Ian Paisley or Gerry Adams this week, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister was in constant contact with both parties. He had been over Christmas and over the New Year and would no doubt continue to be so.
Asked why the DUP had not responded, pointing to the Prime Minister’s piece in the Irish Times where he talked about detailed conversations held with the DUP and how he believed that providing Sinn Fein delivered on their commitments then the DUP would enter into government with them on 26 March, the PMOS replied that he was not a spokesman for the DUP. They would speak for themselves. Everyone knew that 26 March was laid down in legislation; everyone knew that that was the deadline for setting up power sharing. Dr Paisley has said that his party would not be found wanting so long as Sinn Fein delivered on policing. He added that he understood people’s concerns but believed that there actually was a shared intent on where people wanted to go. The Prime Minister’s article today set out his reasons why it would be absurd for people not to move forward on the basis of that shared intent.
Saddam’s Execution
Asked for the timing of the Prime Minister’s personal statement on Saddam’s execution, the PMOS replied that he was slightly mystified by the coverage of this. The Prime Minister had set out on many occasions his opposition to the death penalty, including how it related to Saddam Hussain in particular, well before the sentencing, and actually between sentencing and execution. Secondly he recognised that Iraq was a sovereign country, and therefore like any other sovereign country was entitled to reach its own decision on matters such as the death penalty. He also recognised that there were very strong emotions in Iraq surrounding Saddam, not least because of the brutal outrages that Saddam had carried out. Thirdly, at last week’s briefing it was made clear that we supported the Iraqi government’s decision to launch an inquiry into what went wrong in the events surrounding the execution. Therefore the idea that we hadn’t expressed a view was factually not borne out by the facts.
Put to him that the Prime Minister had an opportunity last week during his interviews on Northern Ireland to put this matter to bed in one simple sentence, the PMOS responded that the Prime Minister’s view was that if he had responded on either of the two occasions on Thursday and Friday, it would have completely crowded out coverage of what he thought were important messages both on Northern Ireland and on the health service. He added that the amount of time and effort that the Prime Minister had devoted to Northern Ireland over his Christmas period underlined the importance of the period that we were in.
Asked if the Prime Minister thought that other senior cabinet Ministers should have waited until after he had expressed his own view, given that coverage of the Prime Minister’s words on the health service were crowded out by senior Ministers’ views on the execution, the PMOS replied that the premise of the question was wrong. He had been listening to bulletins in Northern Ireland and the coverage of the health service was there and the coverage of Saddam’s execution was not. Asked further whether senior members of the cabinet should have waited until after the Prime Minster to express their view, the PMOS replied that they were asked direct questions. He repeated that the Prime Minister had important things to say and did not want them crowded out. Put to him that therefore the Prime Minster would not respond to any breaking news story or event if he already had an agenda for that day, the PMOS reiterated that there was no mystery what the Prime Minister’s view was on this. He opposed the death penalty; he recognised however that Iraq was a sovereign country; he supported the decision of the Iraqi government to set up an inquiry after it recognised that something had gone wrong. There was no mystery.
Put to him that the Prime Minister had said on Friday that he would have something to say on the issue this week, the PMOS replied that he would, but repeated that there would be no mystery about what he would say. Asked when he would say this, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister would choose the appropriate moment. Asked if the Prime Minster agreed that the manner of the execution was deplorable, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister agreed that it had gone wrong, and therefore that was why the Iraqi government had set up the inquiry, and therefore that was why we supported that inquiry.
Asked firstly to clarify that the Prime Minster did not object to the Iraqi death penalty but to the manner it was carried out, and that given his position on democracy and right and wrong, should the Prime Minister not have been more outspoken in urging the Iraqis to turn a new page an abolish the death penalty, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister’s views on the death penalty pre-dated the whole controversy by decades. The people who installed the Iraqi government were the people of Iraq, that was called democracy. A sovereign government had the right to reach its own decision on the death penalty irrespective of what other governments thought, that again was called democracy. They may take decisions that we disagree with, but that again was democracy. Either a country was sovereign or it was not.
Asked if it was the case, given what the Chancellor had said yesterday, that the initiative had passed from the Prime Minister to the Chancellor and that we had to wait for the Chancellor rather than the Prime Minister to express a lead on the manner of the execution, the PMOS pointed to last week’s lobby where we publicly supported the setting up of the inquiry. Put to him that the Prime Minister had not expressed a view on the manner of the execution, the PMOS replied that by supporting an inquiry into what went wrong we had expressed a view. Put to him that it was possible to both support the inquiry and to disagree that the manner of the execution was deplorable, the PMOS replied that the inquiry was set up in the context of the Iraqi government expressing its shame at what went on. Asked that if the view was clearly expressed last week, why was it necessary to set out the view again yesterday, and was there not the danger that in doing so crowded out the very important messages that the Chancellor made in the morning, the PMOS replied that the media were suggesting that we had not expressed a view, so people were reminded what that view was.
Asked what the Prime Minister’s view was of the Chancellor’s comments about Saddam’s execution, the PMOS replied that the comments were in line with those made earlier by the Deputy Prime Minister and therefore should come as no surprise. Put to him that John Prescott was speaking in a personal capacity, the PMOS replied that John Prescott had expressed his view, and we had expressed ours.
Asked if the Prime Minister’s intention by delaying a formal public statement was to concentrate on President Bush’s plans for the way forward on Iraq and wrap the two together, the PMOS replied that what people on this side of the Irish Sea did not quite clock, was just how significant developments last Thursday on Northern Ireland were. Therefore the Prime Minister’s desire was not to crowd those out, equally with his announcement on the health service. In terms of the Americans’ plans, they would announce their plans when they were ready. A general point was that Basra and Baghdad were two separate scenarios. In Baghdad there was a sectarian conflict, which on the whole Basra did not have. In Basra there was Operation Sinbad, now halfway through, and that was having its impact as the Iraqis took more and more control. Therefore the circumstances on the ground were different and it was inevitable that whatever the Americans announced, it would be tailored to the needs of Baghdad as they saw it on the ground, rather than Basra.
Asked if there had been any decision regarding British troops and whether perhaps more would be sent or whether he would rule this out, the PMOS replied that the position had not changed since Margaret Beckett updated the Commons.
Asked if the Prime Minister had had any communication with Mr Putin over the past two or three weeks, the PMOS replied that he was not aware of any.
Asked whether any President Bush announcement on sending more troops to Iraq would imply that the British would have to follow suit, the PMOS replied that decisions would be made based on circumstances on the ground in our area. The Americans would make their decisions based on the circumstances in their area.
Asked again when the Prime Minister would say something this week, the PMOS replied that he would decide when the appropriate moment was.
Play
Asked whether the Prime Minister had any plans to see the play opening this week by some of the Prime Minister’s wife’s colleagues about the legality of the war in Iraq, the PMOS replied that it had not taken long to get to the silliest question of the year so far, but he was sure that it would not be long before another came along.
delicious
digg
facebook
