Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Home Information Packs, Foreign Criminals, the Prime Minister, Alex Salmond and Litvinenko
HIPS
Asked if there had been a bit of a cave in on the Home Information Packs (HIPs), the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS), replied that this not the case. The courts had to be taken account of, and this was a postponement - nothing more, nothing less.
Asked why the Government was going ahead with HIPs, as the policy may have been a good idea in 1997 but things were very different now, the PMOS replied that we were not aware that the need for homes to comply with energy requirements was an idea that was past its sell-by date in 1998. If anything the issue had become more relevant rather than less relevant. HIPs was a way of encouraging homes, particularly larger homes, to comply with energy requirements. It was important that we did everything we could to get people to comply with energy requirements. Carbon emissions from homes made up 27% of our national carbon emissions, this was well worth tackling.
Put that there was a feeling that HIPs was yet another stealth tax as VAT would be charged on them, the PMOS replied that it was another way of encouraging people to comply with national standards on energy. One way to get someone to insulate their roof was to make them aware of how energy efficient their house was going to be when they sell it. That would influence the next buyer in terms of how much they would have to waste on fuel that they wouldn’t have to if the house was energy efficient.
Foreign Criminals
Asked what we were now saying about the new number of foreign convicted criminals, four times larger the number John Reid had told Parliament there were, the PMOS replied that the important thing was what we were doing to deal with the problem, and we were dealing with it. The Prime Minister had pointed out that in the past there had been no numbers for these figures at all. We were lifting the stones, looking at the real problem, and identifying it.
Asked how we could look at the real problem if a few months ago John Reid told Parliament the wrong numbers, the PMOS replied that new information had come to light, and we had to deal with that new information, which we were.
Prime Minister
Asked what the Prime Minister was working on when he was “working in Downing Street”, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister was working on lots of things that would be revealed in due course. But he gently pointed out that this week we had so far dealt with the issues of local transport, planning, and we would be dealing with energy. By any standards those were big-ticket issues.
Alex Salmond
Asked if the Prime Minister had still been too busy to pick up the phone to talk to Mr Salmond, the PMOS replied that as far as he was aware, phones were two-way communication devices. He was not sure whether we had received an approach from Mr Salmond’s office either. As he had said before, there would be an appropriate moment, which would be at the conveniences of both offices. Asked if there was any point now that the Prime Minister was leaving next month, the PMOS replied that a month was still a long time.
Litvinenko
Put that the Russians had so far shown no inclination whatsoever to cooperate, the PMOS replied that the key words in the question were “so far”. We should wait and see what their considered formal response was. He understood that the journalist was in the business of 24 hour news, but we were in the business of boring legal responses. Let’s see what the legal response was. Whether it was Russia or other countries, there were certain international obligations that people had, let’s see whether Russia abides by them.
Asked if he was suggesting that Russia was bound by some kind of international treaty or agreement to hand over someone if we requested their extradition, the PMOS replied that the European convention on extradition, the Council of Europe Convention concluded in 1957, which Russia signed up to in 2001, stated that extradition requests for Russia are dealt with under part two of the extradition act 2003. Asked if it was our reading of part two of this agreement that Russia was under an obligation to hand over a citizen that we sought for extradition, the PMOS replied that there was not much point in an extradition treaty if that was not the case.
Asked about the News of the World story that this case had been discussed at COBRA, the PMOS replied that he did not discuss anything that had been discussed in COBRA. This was an issue which we regarded as a legal process, and should be dealt with as a legal process.
¼/p>
delicious
digg
facebook
