Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Jack McConnell, Smacking, Smoking, Public Sector Sick Leave, Peter Mandelson, EU Commissioner, Iraq/Saudi Arabia and Butler Report.
Jack McConnell
Asked if the Scottish First Minister, Jack McConnell, would be meeting with the Prime Minister in Downing Street today, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said yes. Asked why, the PMOS said that it was a routine meeting. The Prime Minister met with the First Ministers of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly from time to time.
Smacking
Questioned about the Government’s policy on smacking, the PMOS said that the Government wanted to see an outcome which would maintain the balance between a parent’s right to discipline their child and the protection of that child. We did not want to criminalise parents, which was why we had always been opposed to an outright ban on smacking. Nevertheless, we would be interested to see any other proposals to deal with this issue that were put forward. We were willing to have a free vote on Lord Lester’s amendment. We would wait and see what the outcome of that might be. Asked why the Government was allowing a free vote if it had thought through its position carefully, the PMOS pointed out that there was a difference between an outright ban on smacking and Lord Lester’s proposal which, as we understood it, would not criminalise parents for smacking their children, but would restrict the use of defence of reasonable chastisement in court.
Asked if a ban on smacking was inevitable in the light of European legislation on this issue, the PMOS repeated that the Government was opposed to such a ban. We recognised the primary importance of protecting children. At the same time, however, we continued to maintain the position that protected the right of a parent to smack their own child. Other countries might have different rules. That was a matter for them. The British Government had set out its position for this country.
Asked for a reaction to comments by the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Ken Macdonald, who had told a Parliamentary Committee recently that a total ban on smacking would not necessarily criminalise parents and lead to prosecutions, the PMOS said that since he hadn’t seen the remarks in question, he did not think it would helpful to comment directly on them. That said, the Government was opposed to a total ban and, indeed, anything that we believed could be interpreted as such. Put to him that those in favour of a ban obviously wanted to send a clear signal that smacking was bad, whereas the position which the Government had adopted would seem to indicate the opposite, the PMOS said the Government wanted to send a clear signal that parents had the right to discipline their children. At the same time, however, it was necessary to ensure that the children themselves were protected. In the Government’s view, it was important to strike the right balance. Put to him that if a small group of people were saying that smacking was bad, it would follow that the Government’s position on the issue was ambiguous at best and that public support would therefore be directed towards the former group, the PMOS said that he would disagree with the analysis which had been presented. In our view, people made the distinction between reasonable discipline and hurting children. In the Government’s opinion, therefore, that distinction should be maintained by striking the right balance on this issue. Put to him that the reality of the situation was that it was all about sending the right signals and that the Government must be fearing the consequences were smacking to be outlawed, the PMOS repeated the point that we feared an outright ban would criminalise parents for disciplining their children. In our view, that was not right. Asked what signal the Government was hoping to send to people by adopting its ‘middle way’ position on the issue, the PMOS said we believed that parents would recognise the distinction between discipline - which was right - and hurting children - which was wrong. Questioned as to how a smack could be defined as disciplining or hurting the child, the PMOS said that that would be a matter for the courts to interpret. It was a not dissimilar situation to many legal distinctions which had to be made.
Asked for a reaction to the suggestion that the Government was ‘micro-managing’ people’s lives, the PMOS said that our primary concern was to get the balance right. It was precisely that which was shaping our policy. Put to him that the Government could easily ensure that any legislation would not criminalise parents for reasonable chastisement, the PMOS repeated that the Government believed its position struck the right balance. That was why we were discussing the issue and would allow a free vote on Lord Lester’s amendment.
Smoking
Asked the Prime Minister’s reaction to the BMA’s call for a ban on smoking in public places, the PMOS said that a consultation process on this issue was currently underway, as well as an ongoing debate which we welcomed. However, it was important to await the conclusions of the consultation exercise before making any judgements.
Public Sector Sick Leave
Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned about the reported number of public sector workers ‘throwing sickies’, the PMOS said that this was a matter for departments to investigate and an issue for managers to manage.
Peter Mandelson
Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with Peter Mandelson’s reported remark that the Chancellor was his natural successor, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had always praised the Chancellor. His position on this issue had not changed.
EU Commissioner
Asked if a decision had been made on Britain’s new EU Commissioner, the PMOS said no. As we had been underlining consistently, a decision did not have to be made until the end of July.
Iraq/Saudi Arabia
Asked for a reaction to claims made by Britons held in Saudi Arabia that the Government had dragged its feet and used them as political pawns in the run up to the war in Iraq, the PMOS said that he was unable to brief on the discussions which had been had at the time because they were confidential. Nevertheless, he could say that he did not recognise the version of events that had been presented. Asked if he was implying that the claims were untrue, the PMOS said that the discussions about the detainees had been held in their own right. In the end, it was the outcome which was important.
Butler Report
Asked how the Government was intending to respond to the Butler Report, the PMOS said that the Inquiry team was aiming to present its findings on 14 July. At this point, it was premature to engage in a processological discussion about how the Report would be published. Asked if the Government had yet to receive the Report, the PMOS said he had no intention of getting drawn into a discussion about processology. We were still some days away from publication. If we had anything further to say, we would say it. Asked if the Opposition parties would be given the opportunity to see the Report in advance, despite the fact that they had boycotted the Inquiry, the PMOS said that these issues would be discussed through the normal channels, as you would expect. He was not going to pre-empt what the outcome might be.
delicious
digg
facebook
