Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: SEN schools, Iraq, Prime Minister and Northern Ireland
Special Educational Needs Schools
Asked to clarify the Government’s policy on special educational needs, as journalists had been told that it was not the Government’s policy that special educational schools should be closed, however, the Government had advised local authorities that children educated in special schools should fall over time, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the Government’s policy was that whatever was right for the child was what parents had a right to ask for.
On 14th July 2005, the Prime Minister had said at PMQs that he wanted to "be absolutely clear about my own view which was that there would be circumstances in which the right thing for the children was to integrate them in mainstream schooling. However, I totally agree that equally, there will be situations in which that was quite the wrong thing to do. Both types of provision had to be available, therefore, I really do believe that the best mix is determined locally, rather than nationally". The PMOS said that there were two key points: firstly, that there should be a mix, and secondly, the reality was that it was up to local education authorities to decide how to do that. It was not something that central Government could dictate. We had told local authorities, however, that closures should only take place where they could clearly show something better was planned in its place, but they were local decisions.
Asked if it was the Prime Minister’s view that the provision of special educational needs schools in Tower Hamlets was inadequate, the PMO replied that he was not going to get into the detail of this case, because as the PMOS had said earlier in the day, it was our view that certain matters were personal and should be treated as such. It was up to those who had taken the decision this morning not to treat it as personal to defend that position. The PMOS said that he certainly would not like to; it was a personal matter and should be treated as such.
Asked if it was our understanding that any parent in the same circumstances would have the option, either through their own pockets, or through the taxpayer, to be able to send their child to a private school, the PMOS said that it was a matter for discussion between the parent and the local education authority whether such provision was available through the authority. It was a matter of fact that there were children with special educational needs who had to be provided for in a way that was out of the ordinary. The PMOS repeated what he had said this morning which was that these were matters for individual parents, and no matter what their parent’s role or job was, children had the right of privacy.
Asked whether all local authorities within reason would be in a position to offer such options, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had said in his reply in July 2005, it was a matter for local decisions.
Put that people could only make that choice if the option was available, the PMOS said that there was a need there, and it was up to local educational authorities to decide how to meet that need. The PMOS pointed out that it had been stated as fact on certain news bulletins at lunchtime that it was the Government’s policy to close down special needs schools. It was not the Government’s policy to close down such schools, as it was a matter for local decisions. As the PMOS had said at morning lobby, there had been fewer schools closed under this administration than under the previous one.
Asked when was the Prime Minister first aware of this difficulty involving Ruth Kelly, and was it a factor in her moving from Education, the PMOS replied that he had no reason to support the question in any way.
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that the provision of special needs schools was adequate within the state sector, the PMOS said that what the Prime Minister thought was that this was a matter that was best decided locally and at local education authority level. It was the responsibility of those authorities to supply that at a local level.
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that there was any evidence that it was Ruth Kelly’s husband who dealt with the case, the PMOS replied that he did not have any information about how this was dealt with by the family concerned, and he was not going to ask, as it was a personal matter.
Put that the problem was that there seemed to be a dispute between Tower Hamlets council and Ruth Kelly, the PMOS said again that he was not going to get involved in a personal matter which should be dealt with personally and should have been kept personal.
Asked if the Prime Minister deprecated the fact that this case had come out, the PMOS replied that there were media rules which governed the privacy of children, irrespective of whether those children were children of people in the public spotlight or not. Those rules were there for a reason, and the Prime Minister was firmly of the view that that should remain the case.
Put that the Prime Minister did not believe that there was a public interest and right to knowledge, the PMOS said that he was not aware of the caveat in the rules which made that exception. A child was a child was a child.
Asked again if the Prime Minister thought that there was any public interest, the PMOS asked the journalist if he could point out a rule that said there was one.
Put that our interpretation of the rules could mean that the Prime Minister thought that everything should be hushed up if it was embarrassing, the PMOS said again that there was a reason why the privacy of children should be protected. It was up to those who had broken the rules to explain why they had done so.
Iraq
Asked if we could expect anything on Wednesday after President Bush’s speech on Iraq, the PMOS replied that as he had said this morning, the US would decide what they would decide, and would announce accordingly. As we had said when we were in Basra, people should not confuse the situation in Baghdad with the situation in Basra, as they were two separate situations on the ground. In Basra, there was Operation Sinbad, and that was halfway through. There was a situation where the Iraqis were increasingly in control of more and more of the city, and there was a situation where sectarian violence was not of the same scale of problems as it was in Baghdad. Therefore, what the Americans would announce about Baghdad would be in relation to the situation on the ground there, and what we decided to do in Basra would be to do with Basra. The two were separate.
In answer to questions about why had the Prime Minister not put more suggestions to the Iraqi Government about the execution of Saddam Hussein, the PMOS answered it was because the Prime Minister respected the sovereignity of the Iraqi Government. There was a democratically elected Iraqi Government that could have changed Iraq’s policy on the death penalty had it wished to do so, but it did not.
Asked why there had been no public statement from Downing Street, the PMOS asked people to could imagine the reaction if we had told the Iraqi Government that it could not decide its position on the death penalty. The PMOS said that he could write the headline.
Asked if the Prime Minister thought that the way in which Saddam was executed would turn him into a martyr, the PMOS replied that what the Prime Minister thought was that first of all, he was opposed to the death penalty. Secondly, Iraq was a sovereign country. Thirdly, something clearly went wrong, and therefore, the Iraqi Government was right to carry out an investigation.
Put that other governments, for example Jamaica, had had executions halted many times, so what was the difference, the PMOS said that the Jamaican government would probably not say that we had dictated to them. Iraq was a sovereign Government, and therefore, could take advice, or ignore advice, as that was its right.
Asked if advice had been given, the PMOS replied that we had clearly expressed our view in a way that was appropriate on the death penalty. It was not a secret in the international community that we opposed the death penalty.
Prime Minister
Asked why the Prime Minister was being so quiet recently; why did he let the Chancellor go on Sunday AM; why was he not doing the PLP; why was he so shy about commenting on Saddam Hussein’s execution, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister had set out decades ago his position on the death penalty, as he opposed it. The Iraqi Government was a sovereign government, and it was, therefore, entitled to take its view of the death penalty, irrespective of the views of the British Prime Minister. That view was partly shared by the strong emotions that Saddam’s actions in the past had caused within Iraq. However, last week at lobby, we did say that we supported the position of the Iraqi Government in response to the execution and the way in which it was carried out, to carry out an inquiry because of what the Iraqi Government had said was its shame at what had taken place. Therefore, there had not been a slowness by No10 to give a view, as we had given a view last week.
Asked why the Prime Minister had pulled out of television interviews and was not going to the PLP, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister did not want to distract from his message on Northern Ireland last Thursday, which was at a vital stage, as the next few weeks would decide the future on Northern Ireland. It was vital that we conveyed our message in a way that was not distracted by a message on Saddam; equally the health service was equally important on Friday.
Put by Sky again that the Prime Minister seemed to be "unusually quiet", the PMOS said that if people had been watching the events on Northern Ireland or the health service last week, they would not think that he had been unusually quiet. The Prime Minister had also written another article on Northern Ireland over the weekend, as the PMOS knew from his phone bill from yesterday!
Northern Ireland
Asked if Ian Paisley was right when he said that there was no set date to transfer policing to Northern Ireland, the PMOS said that he did not brief on personal conversations between the Prime Minister and the Northern Ireland political parties. What the Prime Minister was referring to in his article today was his assessment of what should happen if Sinn Fein fully supported the police and the rule of law. It was the Prime Minister’s firm view that if that did happen, then there should be devolution by May 2008.
delicious
digg
facebook
