Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Gun Crime, Victoria Climbie, Iraq, Israel/Palestinian Conference and FA Cup.
Gun Crime
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) drew journalists’ attention to an announcement by David Blunkett this morning proposing a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for possession of a firearm. Mr Blunkett had said on 2 December 2002, in response to a question from Diane Abbott, that we would seriously consider this issue and look at whether we could add it to the Criminal Justice and Sentencing Bill. We were doing so today as an amendment.
Asked to explain how the Government could be considered to have a coherent crime strategy when gun crime carried a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence but burglars could be let off scot-free, the PMOS said we were not letting people off scot-free. As the Lord Chancellor had made clear this morning, aggravated burglary was a different issue. It was important to recognise that a range of different sanctions were needed to fit different crimes. For example, we believed that community sentences for first-time burglars could be more effective in breaking the cycle of crime and ensuring that people did not re-offend. In contrast, statistics due to be published later this week showed that there had been a significant increase in gun crime, which was something we clearly had to address. That was why the Home Secretary had announced today that he was amending the Bill.
Put to him he appeared to be implying that property crime wasn’t serious, the PMOS said he would disagree. He was simply making the point that there were different degrees of crime and different degrees of punishment. We believed that the public understood the difference between first-time burglary and possession and use of a firearm. Consequently, it was important to have a range of different sanctions available to treat each on a case by case basis. In every instance this was about ensuring that we broke the cycle of crime. Sometimes that meant putting people in prison. Other times it meant more effective use of community sentence orders.
Asked if the Government was concerned about the enforcement of the new measures given the UK had some of the toughest laws on guns following the Dunblane tragedy and yet gun crime had still increased, the PMOS said that the measures post-Dunblane related to legally-held weapons which had been used in a tragic, murderous way in a Scottish primary school. In this case, however, we were talking about tackling illegal guns which were coming into and being used in this country, in addition to the issue of replica weapons. Put to him that the only practical way to tackle the problem of gun crime was through a return to ’sus’, the PMOS said that that wasn’t necessarily the case. The amendment was about tightening up gun laws to take guns off the street and send a strong signal to those who might use them.
Questioned about legislation relating to the use of handguns, the PMOS said that the purpose of the Firearms Amendment Act 1997 had been to ban the private ownership of small firearms. There was clearly a further issue relating to illegally-held guns being used for crime given the increasing gun culture in parts of this country. That was obviously something which we had to address.
Asked if he would endorse Kim Howells’ attack on rap culture, the PMOS said he was not going to pretend he was an expert on rap since he was not. However, as Sir John Stevens and John Denham had both said, there was a drug and crime culture where the use of guns had become more accessible. We needed to challenge that. The five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence announced today would send out a clear signal. Asked again about his attitude to rap music, the PMOS said things had been on the ambient end of the market in his house over Christmas. Asked for a reaction to suggestions that Kim Howells was a racist, the PMOS said that Dr Howells was a very fine Minister who was continuing to carry out his very fine work at the DCMS. He had expressed his views as he was perfectly entitled to do.
Asked to verify some media reports that gun crime had doubled since 1997, the PMOS said that journalists would have to wait for the latest statistics to be published on Thursday. He hadn’t analysed them in sufficient detail to give an informed answer. That said, we acknowledged there had been an increase which was a cause for concern. He repeated that Mr Blunkett’s announcement today had been planned before the appalling murders in Birmingham over the New Year.
Victoria Climbie
The PMOS advised journalists that Lord Laming was due to hand over his report on the Victoria Climbie case this afternoon to Alan Milburn and John Denham. It was due to be published to Parliament shortly - either later this month or early in the next. This was an important report in terms of informing the Green Paper on child protection which the Government had announced it would be bringing forward in the Spring.
Iraq
Asked whether Geoff Hoon would make a Statement to Parliament tomorrow on the call-up of troops, the PMOS said that nothing had been confirmed at this stage. That said, it was not impossible. Were there to be any announcement, it should be seen as part of our prudent military contingency planning.
Asked if the Prime Minister shared a Cabinet Minister’s view that the odds were now against war on Iraq, the PMOS said that when it came to measuring what was likely to happen in the future, he had never seen the issue as something in which William Hill should have an input. The position remained as set out by the Prime Minister in his New Year message last week. We had always maintained that war was not inevitable, but disarmament was. How that might be achieved was up to Saddam Hussein to decide. That had been our position before Christmas and remained our position now. We had a clear diplomatic route in terms of UN Resolution 1441. If Saddam did not choose that route then obviously he would be disarmed by force. In the meantime, however, the weapons inspectors were continuing to carry out their job. Under the terms of Resolution 1441, Hans Blix was obligated to present a formal report to the UN Security Council on 27 January on the progress he and his team had made in their work. He was also due to give an interim update this Thursday in which he would set out progress made so far. This was an ongoing process.
Asked if Downing Street recognised reports from Washington that there was ‘fresh enthusiasm’ for a second UN Resolution authorising military action against Iraq if it was considered necessary, the PMOS said that the position had been set out when Resolution 1441 had been agreed. It had not changed. As we had underlined at the time, there would be a further discussion at the Security Council were a breach to occur.
Asked what advice the Attorney General had given to the Government regarding the question of going to war against Iraq without a second UN Resolution, the PMOS said that it was not our policy to brief on legal advice given by the Attorney General to Government Ministers. However, we had always maintained that the Government would act within international law. That remained the position. Questioned as to whether, according to our interpretation of international law, we could take military action with a further Resolution, the PMOS repeated that the terms of Resolution 1441 provided for a discussion at the UN Security Council should a breach occur. Were such a thing to happen, matters would be taken from there.
Israel/Palestinian Conference
Asked for Downing Street’s reaction to Israel’s decision to prevent Palestinian delegates attending the meeting on Palestinian reform due to take place shortly in London, the PMOS said that on behalf of the Prime Minister he wished to echo the Foreign Secretary’s condemnation yesterday following the atrocity in Tel Aviv. In terms of the travel ban, he pointed to Mr Straw’s response to the Israeli Administration’s announcement. Mr Straw had spoken to his counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, this morning and had set out the British Government’s position. We regreted Israel’s announcement and hoped it was not their final decision. It was our belief that the meeting could provide a useful opportunity to take forward discussion relating to practical ways that the Palestinian Authority could be reformed - something which the Israeli Government itself had called for. We had always been clear that the conference would be limited in scope and was not a substitute for any wider initiative. It was narrowly drawn on practical steps which could strengthen the Palestinian Authority. We remained firmly of the view that such a meeting would be useful and would serve a real purpose. That was precisely why we had asked the Israeli Administration to think again about their decision. Questioned as to whether we would ask the US to intervene, the PMOS said that no doubt we would be in touch with our other international partners. Our contacts at this stage, however, had been with Israel. Put to him that this would seem to indicate that the US was not enthusiastic about our idea to host the meeting, the PMOS said he would disagree. As we had said in December when the proposal had first been put forward, the US Administration supported it. It was about ensuring stronger administrative and political structures within the Palestinian Authority so that if progress was made on the diplomatic track there would be something stronger to sustain it. That had not been the case in the past. It had never been our plan to hold a ’summit’ or meeting with the intention of it replacing the agreed roadmap.
Asked if we expected the meeting on Palestinian reform to take place in the light of Israel’s announcement, the PMOS said that the plan was for the meeting to go ahead in mid-January. Should a travel ban be imposed on representatives from the Palestinian Authority, then obviously a judgement would have to be taken regarding the usefulness of such a conference going ahead in such circumstances. As Mr Straw had articulated this morning, it was our hope that this decision would be revisited by the Israelis and that the Palestinian representatives would be allowed to attend. We would have to wait and see how things panned out over the next few days. Put to him that Israel’s obstruction would appear to suggest that they did not want the conference to go ahead no matter how ‘laudable’ it might be, the PMOS pointed out that the Israeli Administration itself had been talking about the need for administrative reform within the Palestinian Authority. The meeting we would be hosting was intended to help that process. It had always been modest in ambition. Nevertheless, we remained firmly of the view that it would serve a practical purpose. In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had said in the past, he believed that Mr Arafat had not seized opportunities that had been available for peace, which was obviously regretable. Nevertheless, we believed that it was important to try to strengthen the structures within the Palestinian Authority to ensure that if progress was made it would be more sustainable. These were not grand plans. However, we remained of the view that these practical steps could make a difference. As regards of the longer term future of the Middle East, the vision articulated by President Bush remained the routemap towards which we were all working. This was about a two-state solution - a secure Israel within its own borders and a recognised Palestinian state. There was obviously a lot of work which had to be done in order to ensure that that vision could be realised. No one was saying that it would be easy. Clearly it wouldn’t be.
Asked for further detail about those planning to attend the meeting, the PMOS said that, as he understood it, representatives of the Quartet - Russia, US, EU and UN - would attend, as would representatives from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. As we had said in December, the reason why the Israelis had not been invited was because of the impending Israeli elections and also because the meeting would draw narrowly on the issue of Palestinian reform. Questioned as to whether the Israeli travel ban on Palestinian attendees could be overridden by inviting representatives who were based abroad for example, the PMOS said that as he understood it, there was no expectation that Yasser Arafat would be present, but we had asked the Palestinian Authority to nominate representatives. Asked whether we had been in contact with Mr Arafat or anyone else from the Palestinian Authority following Israel’s announcement, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. He pointed out that we had only heard about the latest situation this morning.
Asked for a reaction to criticism that the Prime Minister was getting involved in the forthcoming Israeli elections by meeting Amram Mitzna, the Israeli Opposition Leader, later this week, the PMOS pointed out that it would not be the first time the Prime Minister would have had a meeting with an Opposition Leader in advance of an election in a particular country. For example, he had met Edmund Stoiber quite close to the German election a few months ago and had also met the Spanish and Italian Opposition Leaders. He had also had a meeting with Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister prior to election there in 1999. His meeting with Mr Mitzna should not be interpreted as interference of any kind in the Israeli elections.
FA Cup
Asked whether the Prime Minister had watched Wolves’ victory over Newcastle, the PMOS said he did not know, but he acknowledged that the country always liked to see teams in yellow or amber doing well in the Cup.
delicious
digg
facebook
