Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Police Ombudsman’s Report-Northern Ireland, Police Inquiry, Home Office, Adoption Agencies, Abolition of Slavery Reception and Iraq Debate
Police Ombudsman’s Report, Northern Ireland
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) told journalists that this was a deeply disturbing report about events which were totally wrong and which should never have happened. The fact that they did was a matter for profound regret and the Prime Minister shared that regret. This was also a report about the past, and what was important now was that under the new structures introduced along with the formation of the Police Service Northern Ireland (PSNI), these events could not happen now. What mattered at this stage was the whole community supported that process of transformation.
Asked if the Prime Minister was satisfied that Special Branch were operating on their own and not with Ministerial agreement, the PMOS said that this was a report into the police operation, and he did not want to go into details because it had not yet been formally published. This was, however, related to the police and it did cover the police.
Asked if the Prime Minister was shocked that this had happened on his "watch" and it was not attributable to older administrations, the PMOS said that it was wrong fullstop, no matter when it happened. What was important was that there was now a mechanism that was in place in the Police Ombudsman’s office to investigate matters, and to come to findings about these matters. Importantly, there was also now a mechanism in place to stop this sort of thing happening, as there was now an oversight facility that was not there before, including the policing board. The important things was that all members of the community went onto those boards so that the scrutiny was from the community itself. That again was something that was not there in the past.
Police Inquiry
Asked how the Prime Minister felt about the way in which Ruth Turner was treated, the PMOS replied that as people knew, we had consistently refused to give a running commentary on this investigation. Despite all the coverage there had been in the papers, it had not come from us, and we had refused to engage in public or in private about it. That remained the case.
Put that Lord Puttnam had been touted around by No10 and had said some "colourful" things, the PMOS replied that we had not engaged in providing details about the case. Despite the huge amount of coverage there had been, the PMOS said that he did not think that anyone had suggested it had come from No10.
Asked if we would prefer for other Ministers, past or present, to keep their council rather than appearing to inflame the situation, the PMOS replied that we were not going to give any commentary at all, and he was not going to go into it in any way, as it was better that we did what we had consistently said that we were going to do which was to let the police investigation continue.
Put that the Lord Chancellor had said that the Attorney General would not get involved in the case, yet the Attorney General had said that he might have to, so who was right, the PMOS said that it was a matter for the Attorney General to speak for himself.
Asked again who was wrong, the PMOS replied that the Attorney General had a constitutional role, and he would play that role.
Put that we had said that we would not give a running commentary on the investigation, but the Prime Minister did just that by giving a statement on Friday, and why did he just refuse to comment, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister was not commenting on the case, but rather, on a close colleague, and offering his support. There was a distinction.
Asked if Lord Puttnam was put up by No10, the PMOS said that Lord Puttnam spoke for himself.
Asked if we were aware of the police hacking into Downing Street computers, the PMOS replied that he was not going to give a commentary on any aspect of the investigation. We had not done so, despite there being plenty of comments from elsewhere. However, it had not come from us and we were not going to get involved.
Home Office
Asked what the current view was on the Home Office being split up, the PMOS replied that what had changed was the increasingly complex nature of terrorism and the challenge faced by terrorism. On the basis of that, John Reid had put forward a serious suggestion to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister would want to consider that with the Government as a whole. There was a serious threat, and a new kind of threat in terms of international terrorism, so we had to see where that led to.
Put that one of the problems was the lack of communications, and the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing, and wouldn’t a split make that worse, the PMOS replied that the time to respond to that sort of question was when the Prime Minister took a view after consulting his colleagues. There was a new kind of terrorism out there that was that increasingly complex, and this was an issue that was facing every developed and developing country. It was therefore right and proper that we looked hard at this issue of what was the best way to organise resources to fight that new kind of terrorism.
Asked if it was the Prime Minister’s intention to set out the strategy and sign it off before he left office, or would it be something that was handed on to his successor, the PMOS replied that John Reid had been looking at the fight against terrorism. These were issues which in general, and in particular, would be part of that.
Asked if the Prime Minister was aware of Sir David Omand’s idea that it should be the Cabinet Office that had a more "beefed up" role, rather than the Home Office with regards to counter-terrorism, the PMOS said that this was a subject in which there were many views. The important thing was to come to a considered decision, and that was what the Prime Minister would do.
Asked what the timetable on this would be, the PMOS replied that it would take as long as it would take. Because of the seriousness of the issues involved, there was always a tension between the urgency with which it had to be addressed, the thoroughness with which it was done, as well as the need to consult the various bits of Government which were involved too. It was somewhere in that balance that would result in a timetable.
Put that the Prime Minister had yet to take a view on this, the PMOS said: yes. What we had now had was a serious report from John Reid which would need serious consideration. However, until the Prime Minister had fully consulted all his colleagues, he would not take a position himself until that process of consultation was completed.
Put that the report was handed in before Christmas, the PMOS said that he was not going to get into the processology, except to say that these were very serious issues and they did need a lot of consultation within Government.
Adoption Agencies
Asked for a view about Catholic adoption agencies, the PMOS replied that everyone recognised that there were sensitive issues involved. The Department was considering those and would announce a decision in due course. It was important to take the time and space to consider what were sensitive issues.
Asked if there was not even a hint of a conflict of interest for the Secretary of State, given her own devout Catholic beliefs and membership of Opus Dei, the PMOS said the journalist was treading on dangerous territory. What the question suggested was that any religion, or lack of religion, would disqualify someone from taking a view about anything.
Put that if someone was not only a member of a particular church, but a member of a sect of it, or a freemason, for example, surely they would have to be disqualified, the PMOS said that to disqualify people because of their beliefs or lack of beliefs would be dangerous territory to tread on. It was always a mistake to say that people did not approach subjects from a particular viewpoint; we all had viewpoints, but the important thing was that we developed policy in Government which reflected the view of Government as a whole. The PMOS said that there were difficult issues, and issues which should not be decided on one individual’s view, and there were very sensitive issues here, not least which was the future of the children involved.
Abolition of Slavery Reception
Asked for further information about the abolition of slavery reception tonight, the PMOS informed people that that it was about signing up to the Council of Europe Convention on Human Trafficking which had been signed by more than 30 other countries. The Convention required signatories to provide victims with secure accommodation, access to emergency medical assistance, translation services, counselling, assistance with judicial proceedings and access to education for children. The PMOS said that this was marking the start of the commemoration of the bi-centenary of the abolition of slavery.
Iraq Debate
Asked for further information about the Prime Minister’s speech to the CBI, and was this why he would not attend the Iraq debate in the Commons, the PMOS said that as people knew, it was not the Prime Minister’s practice to attend these debates. As people also knew, the Prime Minister had given a commitment that after the completion of Operation Sinbad and its assessment, he would make a statement in the House on Iraq.
delicious
digg
facebook
