Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: E-Petitions and Deputy Prime Minister’s Office
E-Petitions
Asked for an insight into what the Prime Minister’s response to the road petition might be tomorrow, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the important thing was that this would give the Prime Minister a change to engage with the debate. As we had said all along, what people could not do was do nothing, and therefore, what had to happen was that we explained what it was that we were doing. What we were not doing was going in one step to a national pricing scheme, and the Prime Minister would set out that sequence. Rather, we were setting up ten pilot schemes to find out how such schemes worked, and to give us the experience on which to base any future decisions. The PMOS said that it was a case of setting out the arguments; we recognised that people felt strongly about this, but equally, people felt very strongly about congestion as well. As the PMOS had said earlier, if we did nothing, congestion would have risen by 25% by 2010, 30% by 2015, and 40% by 2025. Therefore, we had to do something, and the Prime Minister would set out those arguments.
Asked if the Prime Minister would address the issue of tracking, the PMOS said that the privacy issue was a real concern, and the Prime Minister would address that and reassure people about it. What people should not do was wrap up the privacy issue with the issue of not doing anything about congestion. The PMOS added that the Prime Minister’s response would be on the No10 website by 0600 tomorrow morning, but we wanted to get it out to petitioners first. The petition would close this evening, but because of the size of the petition, we had to get it out in batches over the next few days.
Asked further about the sending out of the response, the PMOS said that the first responses would go out to those who had organised the petition, with the aim to send it out to everyone else as soon afterwards. Because of the technology involved, it was not possible to send it to everyone at the same time without the entire system collapsing, therefore it would be done in batches.
Put that if the organisers had their computers switched on after midnight, they should receive an email, the PMOS said that was correct.
Asked by the Daily Telegraph what would happen if people got hold of one of the organisers and got a copy of their emailed response, the PMOS replied that there was a basic politeness involved because we should make the best possible effort that we could to get it out to those who had taken the trouble to petition first before releasing it to the media.
Asked if the Prime Minister had written this in pen and paper and then handed it to someone to type up, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister had been intimately involved in preparing a response to this petition. It was an issue that he fully recognised people had strong feelings about. The Prime Minister also recognised that this was an issue in which the Government had to provide the lead, because if we did nothing, then congestion would result in grid-lock in our cities. If people looked at some of the media reports yesterday, it was suggested that if nothing was done about congestion in Manchester, it would cost 30,000 jobs. That was a local estimate, but it was an issue which did result in killing jobs in particular localities. The PMOS said that this was a unique exercise, and we would have to see how it went technically. In terms of creating a debate around the issue of congestion, however, it had been successful, as people knew a lot more about the issue today than they did before the whole exercise started. That was a good thing.
Asked if there had been any consideration in Downing Street to end this website, the PMOS said absolutely not. The Prime Minister believed that the strong feelings about road pricings were there before the petition. The petition had not created strong feelings; rather, what it had done was reveal the extent of those feelings. As we had said before, however, that was not a solution to the problem, and we had to come up with a solution. If people did not like road pricing, then what was the alternative? What we were engaged in was a proper debate, but the arguments and facts to be looked at, and we had to get the experience of the ten pilot schemes before deciding policy.
Asked if the Prime Minister had any reservations about the idea, the PMOS replied that petitions were not a new phenomenon. Petitions had always been a part of Downing Street, and just because people presented the petition did not mean that there was an automatic follow through in terms of policy. What it did mean, however, was that the onus had to be put on entering and engaging with the debate, and that was no bad thing.
Asked if the Prime Minister would give out any details about the broad scheme the Government would outline, the PMOS replied that this had to be taken step by step. The whole purpose of setting up pilot schemes was to explore the practical issues. As the PMOS had said, this was not a single step to a national road pricing scheme; at this stage, what we were proposing was ten pilot schemes to get the detail and experience right in order to explore further precisely the sorts of questions journalists were asking.
Asked if the genesis behind the e-petitions was the head of Google, the PMOS said the wasn’t precisely sure of the genesis but there was no sense at all in Downing Street that we regret having gone down this road. It had been a very interesting exercise.
Asked if the Prime Minister only replied to petitions with a certain number of signatures, the PMOS replied that there had always been a "mix and match" approach to petitions, as some were referred to departments to be answered, some got a generic response, and some the Prime Minister would choose to reply to. Petitions had always been a significant part of the communications effort in No10, not just under this Government, but under previous administrations as well.
Asked what the rules were about the use of the petitioners’ email addresses after they had been replied to, the PMOS said that people who emailed in get an answer to that petition and nothing else.
Deputy Prime Minister’s Office
Asked what extra functions did the Deputy Prime Minister have in order to justify the 30% increase in his budget, the PMOS explained that it did not mean any new money. It was purely a technical accounting mechanism, and it did not mean that there was any new money to spend. Therefore, the premise of the question was without foundation.
Asked to clarify if that meant that the number was wrong the first time round and they were now correcting it, the PMOS said no, it was just different aspects of the role. Because of the change in the departments, bits of the departments’ money were coming from other departments, and that was what had changed. The PMOS said people should speak to the department for further information on this.
delicious
digg
facebook
