Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: War on Terror/Death of DC Oake and Iraq.
War on Terror/Death of DC Oake
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister had spoken to the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Michael Todd, this morning. The Chief Constable had taken the opportunity to explain the circumstances of yesterday’s sad events and the impact on his force and the officers involved. In response, the Prime Minister had expressed his deep personal sympathy to the family of DC Oake and Mr Todd had undertaken to pass it on directly to the family when he saw them later this afternoon. The Prime Minister had also expressed his sympathy for the other officers who had been at the scene at the time and had underlined his full support for them in what was not only a sad but a difficult time. He had ended the conversation by offering the Chief Constable the Government’s assistance as he investigated the incident.
Asked for further detail about the Prime Minister’s working relationship with DC Oake, the PMOS said that DC Oake had been a member of the Prime Minister’s protection team during events such as the Commonwealth Games in Manchester last year. During that time, he had met the Prime Minister, as all members had done. He had worked very closely with the Downing Street protection team and had been genuinely very highly regarded. Asked whether DC Oake had worked for the Prime Minister during the last election campaign, the PMOS said he believed that was true.
Asked how soon the safeguards within the asylum system would be ‘refined’, the PMOS referred journalists to the Home Office for further detail on the Home Secretary’s Statement to the House this afternoon. As he had underlined, it was important not to underestimate what had already been done. While we acknowledged that last night had had a very tragic outcome, it had nevertheless shown the Security Service and the police co-operating on intelligence-led operations against those suspected of terrorist activity. Mr Blunkett had also stated that the Government had supported a limited derogation from the EU Convention so that it could detain those who could not be deported under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act which had been introduced - to some opposition - in the wake of September 11. Other measures which had been introduced included the Application Registration Card which contained the holder’s photograph and fingerprints. Immigration officers also had access to the profiles of those who were thought to pose a risk before letting them into this country. In addition, no one should underestimate the impact that innovations such as joint immigration controls in France and Belgium and new detection equipment at UK ports were having.
Iraq
Asked again for a reaction to criticism expressed by Church of England Bishops regarding the Prime Minister’s stance on Iraq, the PMOS said that of course the Bishops were entitled to express their view. However, as anyone who had watched PMQs today would have noted, the Prime Minister passionately believed that the issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was something we had to face up to. We were not talking about some distant danger. WMD were a real threat to this country. And it was just as important for people to understand the reality of a possible crossover between that and terrorism. Put to him that it would be helpful to the Prime Minister’s case if he produced evidence to support that connection, that PMOS pointed out that it was not possible to produce evidence of a putative crossover when it related to a future event. Intent, however, was a different matter. People only had to look at September 11 to understand the objective of international terrorists to cause as many deaths as possible. As the Prime Minister had said in his news conference on Monday, if the terrorists on September 11 could have caused 30,000 deaths rather than 3,000, clearly they would have had no moral compunction in doing so. The international trade in chemical and biological WMD was an undeniable fact. In terms of Iraq, we needed to give Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors the time and space to show that Saddam Hussein was not complying with Resolution 1441 - or, at the very least, that he was not co-operating pro-actively in answering the outstanding questions which Dr Blix and his colleague, Mohammed El Baradei, had identified last week.
Asked if he was implying that a failure on the part of Saddam Hussein to prove his innocence regarding the missing material identified by UNSCOM in the late 1990s would be enough for Dr Blix to say that Saddam was in material breach of Resolution 1441, the PMOS said that he had no intention of pre-empting Dr Blix’s report to the UN Security Council on 27 January. That said, it was simply a statement of fact - as Dr Blix himself had pointed out - that 1441 explicitly placed a duty and obligation on Saddam not only to ensure that gates were opened for the UN inspectors on arrival at their chosen sites but to answer the outstanding questions proactively, including the question of what the Iraqi regime had done with the residues of chemical and biological weapons they had had when the UN inspectors had last been there.
Questioned about Dr Blix’s report to the Security Council on 27 January, the PMOS underlined again that people should not view 27 January as a deadline, although it was clear that what Hans Blix said in his report would have a significant impact on what happened in the days, weeks and months to follow.
Asked if the Prime Minister’s apparent expression of confidence today in achieving a second UN Resolution was significant, the PMOS reminded journalists that people had been surprised when Resolution 1441 had been passed unanimously. The strength of international feeling that Saddam must comply was very strong. Thus, if Dr Blix concluded that he was in breach of Resolution 1441, the international community would be faced with a very stark choice - either to force Saddam to comply with its will or to allow its will to be flouted, which would have severe implications for the UN. It went without saying that we took nothing for granted. However, we were confident that the UN - the international community - would decide that its will must be obeyed.
Asked why Peter Mandelson was being put forward for interview to defend the Government’s policy on Iraq when it should be the job of Ministers to do so, the PMOS pointed out that the Prime Minister, Jack Straw and other Government Ministers had all done interviews on Iraq. What Mr Mandelson did in his own right as an MP was a matter for him. Asked if he was saying that Peter Mandelson was freelancing, the PMOS said that Mr Mandelson was an MP who was just as entitled to speak his mind as anyone else.
delicious
digg
facebook
