Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Security and Terrorist Committee Meeting, EU Treaty, Africa Progress Panel Meeting, Bin collections, Boris Yeltsin, Chairman of Committee on Standards in Public Life and Freedom of Information Bill
Security and Terrorist Committee Meeting
Asked for further details about the Security and Terrorist Committee meeting, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) told journalists that as people knew, this had come about as a result of the package of measures announced on 29th March to strengthen our ability and capabilities to deal international terrorism. The Committee would meet monthly, and it would be chaired by the Prime Minister, and attended by the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, as well as senior police and other agency representatives. It was obviously a way of ensuring that we responded across the board in the right way to the ongoing serious terrorist threat. Today’s meeting would receive an assessment of the current threat from the new Director General of the Security Service, and it would agree a work programme to look at international terrorism and linkages to the UK, as well as the struggle of values and ideas. It would keep under review the need for any new legislation. The PMOS said that obviously given the nature of the work, there would not be a running commentary each month.
Asked for further information on the future work programme, the PMOS explained that this Committee was a recognition of firstly the seriousness of the threat, secondly, that that threat was both international in character, but for a small minority, domestic in character as well. Equally, it had to be looked at from both a security point of view as well as the idea of winning the argument in communities in the UK and abroad. Therefore it was bringing together all those diverse elements and creating a forum where they could be discussed between Ministers and the practitioners once a month.
Asked if we were saying that the Prime Minister had not had similar meetings between 2001 and the present, and also, where did this leave Sir Richard Mottram, the PMOS replied that as we had said on 29th March, the Prime Minister would continue to seek advice from the Cabinet Office, and that position remained. With regards to the overall structures, yes, it was true that there were diverse elements which provided the advice, but what this Committee did was bring them together in a monthly forum, and that was of value
Asked who else would attend the monthly meetings, for example, would various community leaders attend, the PMOS said they were represented through Ruth Kelly. There would be other Ministers and senior police as and when necessary. The important thing was that the “top heads” of the key administrations were there.
Asked if the Committee’s function was not a monthly audit on where we were on terrorism, but rather, for forward thinking discussions or the tactics on where things were going, the PMOS said that the new Security Office that was being created within the Home Office would be chaired by the Home Secretary on a regular basis. This Committee was about more strategic direction, but obviously, the two could not be divorced completely.
Asked if anything was agreed this morning, the PMOS said that this was much more about setting forward a future work programme. The PMOS said that journalists should not anticipate a regular update of things that had been agreed at the Committee meetings, given the nature of the work.
Asked if the split of the Home Office would be discussed at the meeting, and was there any chance of a rethink regarding a split following Lord Falconer’s recent remarks, the PMOS replied that Lord Falconer had dealt with that during his interview on the radio today. The decision had been taken, and there had been ongoing work consulting people about that decision. It was one of those decisions where a decision was taken and then implemented, because if it was left for a long period, then you risked paralysis in the system while people waited to see what the result was.
Asked if there were any grounds for optimism as a result of the meeting this morning, the PMOS replied that in this area, he would avoid getting into optimism or pessimism. Rather, what was important was were we seeing successful operations being carried out against terrorism? The answer was: yes. Was the hard reality that the level of threat remained high? Answer: yes. Therefore, what had to be done was constantly review a strategy, and update that strategy in terms of experience, and this Committee provided a forum to do so, and to share both assessments and analysis from across Government.
Asked if the Security or police chiefs warned about any specific threats, the PMOS said that with regards to warnings or threats, we had always said that we would let the public know if there was reason to do so. The PMOS said that he was not going to get into briefing on a regular basis about the Committee’s information.
Asked if the Security or police chiefs tell the Government about any operations they were thinking of, the PMOS repeated that he did not want to get into giving a running commentary on details of the meeting.
Asked what kind of strategy was there for countering radicalisation, the PMOS said that Ruth Kelly and her department were very much in the lead on this. We had talked in the past about working with Muslim communities to counter extremist voices, demands and the spread of extremism within that community. That work had produced tangible results, and if people went to the department, they would be able to find out precisely the measures that had been taken. The PMOS said that we had set up a forum for countering extremism in the Muslim community and we were working with local authorities to bolster that effort.
Asked if there were any links this morning to Abu Izzadeen, the PMOS replied that operational matters were entirely a matter for the police.
Asked how the success against terrorism could be measured, the PMOS said that they could be measured in terms of terrorist operations that had been stopped before they came to fruition. They could also be measured in terms of countering the influence of terrorist and extremist voices within communities. This was not something that one operation was going to deal with. Rather, this was a long, drawn out process, and there had to be the right structure to deal with that threat, not just in the short term, but in the medium-to-long term as well.
EU Treaty
Asked why the Prime Minister was so determined to avoid a referendum on the constitution, the PMOS said that he recognised that the question was a Daily Telegraph way of putting things, and the journalist may not be surprised if the PMOS answered in a different way! The view of the Prime Minister, the Dutch Prime Minister, and we believed of other leaders as well, although they would speak for themselves, was that Europe needed to move forward from the internal debate about its organisation. This was essentially what this had been about, and it needed to take action on the issues such as energy, trade liberalisation which mattered to ordinary citizens. The Prime Minister believed the Dutch and French referendum results, clearly underlined that there was not going to be a quick consensus on an EU constitution that had all the characteristics of a constitution. What the Prime Minister believed, however, that it was possible to get agreement on the practical issues that Europe needed to address if it was to work successfully as a Europe of 27, rather than a Europe of 15. Those practical issues would contribute to an amending treaty, such as those we had seen in the past which did not require referenda.
The PMOS said that that was why the Prime Minister believed that it was possible to make progress in June and to achieve the results that would allow Europe to move forward, but only if we focused relentlessly on the practical, rather than the grander scheme that was originally envisaged. That was the approach the Prime Minister would be taking into the meeting with Chancellor Merkel. As EU President and as German Chancellor, Chancellor Merkel would obviously have her own position, but we believed that there was a consensus certainly amongst some member states that what we needed to focus on was on the practical, rather than the grander elements of the constitution as it was.
Asked if we believed that France wouldn’t push the issue at later summits, the PMOS replied that given the fact that there was an election going on in France, and we would know the result in less than two weeks, a period of silence from him would be the wisest thing.
For further information on the Prime Minister’s press conference with Prime Minister Balkenende, see: http://pm.gov.uk/output/Page11479.asp
Africa Progress Panel Meeting
Asked what policies were being discussed and what did we hope would come out of the Africa meetings, the PMOS said that there would be an inaugural meeting of the Africa Progress Panel (APP). The idea between the APP was that Gleneagles genuinely was a landmark for Africa, but what we needed to ensure was that both sides of the equation lived up to the commitments that they made at Gleneagles. The African nations had to deliver on governance, fighting corruption, support for the Africa Union training troops and that the donor countries delivered on their overall aid levels to Africa, as well as specific issues such as countering HIV/AIDS. There had been real progress in terms of Africa, but we needed to see that delivered within the timescale that was set out at Gleneagles which was up to 2010. If people looked two years on from Gleneagles, the increases in global aid were up from $79 billion in 2005 to $103.9 billion this year. Aid to Africa was up by $10 billion. Those figures included significant levels of debt relief, especially to Nigeria and Iraq, but even without taking into account that debt relief, aid was still up from the Gleneagles baseline. If the debt relief was taken out, global aid was up by $8 billion, and aid to Africa by $2 billion. The PMOS said that we had seen real progress, but we needed to have a mechanism that drove that through to 2010, and this was what the APP would do.
Asked who was on the panel, the PMOS said that it tended to be former leaders, but it was chaired by Kofi Annan.
Asked if the Prime Minister was disappointed that donor countries had not given enough, as aid agencies had said that the figures were less than a tenth of the amount needed by 2010, the PMOS replied that the important thing was that we did have until 2010, and it was also important to recognise the progress that had been made. As we had said at Gleneagles there was always a danger that because you didn’t arrive at perfection the day after, people dismissed the progress that had been made. 22 countries had benefited from 100% debt relief; that was no small thing. 18 of those countries were in Africa, and that amounted to $38 billion so far. Equally, what was important was that we kept to the Gleneagles commitment, and that was why the APP was there.
Put that we conceded the point that not enough had been done so far, but that we should wait until 2010, the PMOS replied that the danger was always that if credit was not given for what had been done so far, then countries believed that there was nothing in it for them. A better way of doing it, however, was to recognise what had been done so far, and to create a mechanism to ensure that countries knew that if they did not live up to their commitments, then it was not something that was going to go unnoticed. That was what the APP was all about and that was why we deliberately stitched it in to what was agreed at Gleneagles.
Put that given the drive for good governance, was the Prime Minister concerned about the Nigerian elections, the PMOS said that the EU, amongst others, was looking at the Nigerian elections and the concerns around them. Therefore, it was better that we waited for the overall EU response before commenting further.
For more information on the Africa Progress Panel, go to: http://www.africaprogresspanel.org/
Bin collections
Asked if the Prime Minister would mind having his bins collected fortnightly, rather than weekly, the PMOS said that this was a matter for local authorities, and he was sorry to disappoint the Daily Mail.
Boris Yeltsin
Asked who would be our representative to Boris Yeltsin’s funeral, the PMOS replied that it was not yet decided.
Chairman of Committee on Standards in Public Life
Asked who would be the Interim Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the PMOS said that it would be Rita Donaghy whilst we waited for the report from the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) on ethics and standards. We would not express a view until we had seen the PASC report.
Put that was it not strange to wait for a Select Committee to publish their report before implementing what the position was, the PMOS said that if it was the other way round, he could write the Standard’s piece: “The Government today ignored the views of members of Parliament”! The PMOS said that he knew that journalists were paid to have their cake and eat it, but that was “pretty rich cake”.
Asked if the interim report reflected a change in the Government’s position, the PMOS replied that we had said at the time, we would appoint an Interim Chair. Nobody in Sir Alistair Graham’s position had been re-appointed for a second term.
Freedom of Information Bill
Asked if the Prime Minister had a view on the Freedom of Information (FoI) Bill, the PMOS replied that it was the Government’s position as this was a matter for Parliament.
Â
delicious
digg
facebook
