Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Meetings/G8, Afghanistan, Street Crime/Magistrate Courts, Asylum and John Prescott/Bali.
Meetings/G8
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister had met President Mbeki of South Africa and Prime Minister Chretien of Canada earlier this morning. The Prime Minister had had a twenty-minute bilateral with President Mbeki, followed by a twenty minute trilateral involving the President and Canadian Prime Minister.
He had then spent a further hour with Prime Minister Chretien. The main focus of the meeting had been the preparations for next month’s G8 Summit in Canada, centring in particular on how the G8 could best respond to the NEPAD initiative. The Prime Minister had taken the opportunity to pay tribute to Mr Chretien’s leadership in taking forward the preparations for the Summit.
Other issues discussed this morning included the Middle East, the campaign against terrorism and Kyoto. John Prescott had also attended to discuss the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September.
Asked whether the Prime Minister and President Mbeki had discussed the issue of Zimbabwe, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. Asked if that meant ‘everything was alright in Zimbabwe now’, the PMOS said that quite frankly he did not think the question deserved an answer.
Put to him that NEPAD had been set up specifically to deal with countries like Zimbabwe, the PMOS said he did not disagree. However, today’s discussion had focussed on how to make the G8 Summit a success. Part of that was about creating as much momentum as we could for NEPAD.
Afghanistan
The PMOS drew journalists’ attention to a PQ being answered this afternoon by Denis MacShane which would underline the remarkable success of the poppy eradication programme in Afghanistan.
Asked if there were any plans to apologise to the Afghan warlord whose weapons store we had blown up because we had though that the ordnance belonged to Al Qaida, the PMOS said he was not aware of the report.
Street Crime/Magistrate Courts
The PMOS advised journalists that Michael Wills was publicising two pilot schemes beginning today to extend the opening hours of Magistrate courts in Manchester and Bow Street. Under the scheme, Magistrates in Manchester would sit from 9am every day, with evening court sittings twice a week from 4pm to 8pm. Bow Street Magistrates would operate a late night sitting from 6pm to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.
This tied in very closely with the Government’s strategy on street crime and followed the setting up of the 67 special street crime courts which were also aimed towards fast-tracking robbery cases through CPS prosecutors with expertise in tackling street crime. The location of the pilot projects were not coincidental given Manchester and Bow Street were in two obvious street crime hotspots.
Asked to explain the thinking behind the schemes, the PMOS said that the idea was to cut down on the period between the time an offence was committed and an appearance before Magistrates. Not only would it help reduce the chance of re-offending and bring speedier justice for victims, but it would also eradicate costs and backlogs.
Asked how much it would cost to extend court opening hours, the PMOS said he did not have the figure to hand and referred journalists to the Home Office. Asked how long the pilots would run, the PMOS said four months. We would look carefully at the possibility of extending the scheme if they were judged to have been a success.
Asylum
Asked whether the three new asylum centres being announced today would be run by private companies, the PMOS said that they would be run primarily by the Immigration Service. Lord Rooker would be holding a press briefing later this morning to provide more detail. In answer to further questions, the PMOS took the opportunity to correct some misimpressions which he said had been reported this morning. Everybody would agree that the present system did not work.
As a result, we had had to think hard about how we could deal with the problems. The proposals being announced today had been well thought through. Contrary to the way the issue had been reported this morning, we were not talking about dumping asylum seekers in the countryside with no facilities. Nor were we talking about leaving them to ‘overwhelm’ local communities. These were centres which would provide accommodation and self-contained services and facilities for families seeking asylum - hence their size.
Of course those staying at the centres would still be able to interface with the local community. However, they would not be ‘overwhelming’ them, as reports today had suggested. Asked what was to stop them all going down to the pub at lunchtime and ‘overwhelming’ the locals there, the PMOS said that they would not ‘overwhelm’ the locals.
Moreover, if they were going down to the pub to have a drink at lunchtime, then surely that was to the advantage of the local pub. Journalists once again appeared to be trying to have their cake and eat it. On the one hand, they were saying the present system did not work. We would agree.
However, now that we were announcing proposals which had been fully thought through, it made no sense to dismiss them outright and say they wouldn’t work. The three centres were an experiment, and any lessons which needed to be learned would be learned.
Asked for a reaction to reports that French police had given up trying to prevent asylum seekers boarding Channel Tunnel trains, the PMOS said that a particular problem had come to light last week and the French had been dealing with it. It was simply not true to say that a decision had been taken to withdraw all police officers. Those reports were exaggerated. We had urged the French authorities to increase policing levels.
Discussions had taken place at different levels on this subject. For example, Peter Hain had spoken to the French Ambassador, Stephen Byers had already raised the issue with his new French counterpart, and the FCO had spoken to the Cabinet of the Transport Minister, with SNCF and the regional Préfet’s Office. The Home Office was also seeking an urgent meeting at senior level.
Asked why France was cutting police levels when we had asked them to increase them, the PMOS repeated that reports this was happening had been exaggerated. He explained that there had been a particular problem last week at the Frethun freight yard which we had asked them to correct. As he understood it, local police were always present at all times.
However, specialist police dealing with the particular issue of clandestines at Frethun had been reassigned to other duties temporarily last week. We were pushing for them to be reinstated. Asked if we were frustrated that the issue was still ongoing, the PMOS said that of course we wanted the issue to be resolved. However, we would continue to go about doing that in the right way. Due to the change of Government in France, it was perhaps not surprising that it was taking a little longer than we would otherwise have wished.
Put to him that the presence of police officers at Frethun did not necessarily mean that the terminal was being policed, the PMOS rejected the premise of the question. He said that while policing levels might not be as good as we would want temporarily, it was an exaggeration to say that Frethun was not being policed. It was. Put to him that a video had been shot showing French police officers standing by while asylum seekers boarded the trains, the PMOS said he hadn’t seen the video so he couldn’t comment on it.
Put to him that senior Ministers had seen the video, the PMOS repeated that he hadn’t seen it and therefore could not comment. That said, we acknowledged there was a particular problem which we were asking the French to deal with. Challenged that there was evidence to show that the problem was quite specific and distinctive and yet he appeared to be saying that there was no evidence, the PMOS said he wasn’t suggesting that at all.
He was making the point that we acknowledged that the withdrawal of the specialist police unit at Frethun was a particular problem which needed to be addressed. We were in contact with the French authorities at all levels and they were fully aware of our concerns. He was not saying that there was no police presence at Frethun. There was.
Asked if we were concerned that the freight operator might be forced out of business, the PMOS said he was not going to comment on the position of the operator, but it was clear that this issue needed to be resolved. We would continue to work with all concerned to make sure that happened.
Put to him that whatever it was we were doing was not working, the PMOS said it was. We were talking to the French Government. Put to him that nothing was happening, the PMOS pointed out that not every problem could be solved overnight. Challenged that this problem had existed for years, the PMOS said not the particular problem we were talking about today.
Asked why the issue of clandestines was still being addressed eighteen months on from the Cahors Summit when it had been discussed at length, the PMOS said that there was a particular issue here which had to be dealt with, as we were continuing to do.
Asked if he would agree that the problem showed that Britain was still being seen as a ’soft touch’, the PMOS said no. We had been dealing with the immigration issue. We would continue to deal with it. We were working with the French Administration to close all the loopholes. The pressure on Frethun was partly the result of our success working with the French and transport operators to reduce illegal immigration elsewhere. Clandestines on the Eurotunnel Shuttle had fallen from 808 in July 2001 to 40 in November 2001. Inadequately documented Eurostar arrivals had fallen from 834 in December 2000 to 146 in December 2001.
Put to him that the figures did not present an accurate picture because television images showed would-be clandestine walking towards the trains and the tunnel in large numbers, the PMOS said that one picture taken on one night did not characterise the entire issue. Pressed to explain why asylum seekers were so desperate to get out of France and into Britain, the PMOS pointed out that Britain was seen as an economic success story and that was one reason why people wanted to come here.
He underlined that it was important to look at the issue of immigration in the round. Rather than being viewed solely as a problem, it should also be considered an opportunity. While there were genuine refugees who were fleeing persecution, others wanted to come here for economic reasons - and there were yet others who had the skills that this country needed. The proposals being announced by Lord Rooker showed that we were indeed dealing with the issue in the round, as we had said we would.
Put to him that we did not appear to be dealing with the issue in the specifics’, the PMOS said we were. Other problems that had arisen had been dealt with. Challenged that once asylum seekers had entered the country illegally it was very difficult ‘to get rid of them’, the PMOS said that we were dealing with the issues and any problems as they arose one by one - and would continue to do so.
John Prescott/Bali
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that the Deputy Prime Minister needed to take forty officials with him to Bali for a week, the PMOS said that Mr Prescott had not yet decided whether he would be going to Bali - and even if he did decide to go, it would be because of the need to make the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September a success. Moreover, the conference in Bali had been proposed and organised by the UN, who believed it would play a very valuable role in preparing for the Summit. Asked whether it was really necessary for Mr Prescott to take forty officials with him, the PMOS repeated that Mr Prescott had not yet decided whether he would go. A delegation from DEFRA would be attending because there were specialist areas which had to be addressed. The people who needed to go would go. Asked if discussions had taken place this morning concerning Mr Prescott’s attendance in light of the ‘revelations’ in today’s papers, the PMOS said that if we allowed newspapers to dictate whether Government Ministers and officials should attend conferences or not, it would be a very strange way to make Government policy. Pressed for a response to the question, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware.
delicious
digg
facebook
