Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Sir John Stevens, Freedom of Information, Butler Report, John Edwards, Abortion, EU Rebate and Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.
Sir John Stevens
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister had paid tribute to the work of the Met Police Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, who had announced his retirement today. The Prime Minister said, "Sir John has brought outstanding leadership during one of the most challenging periods in modern policing. His contribution to fighting crime on London’s streets, dealing with the terror threat and modernising the police force has been immense. He has brought energy, vision and dedication to making our capital city a safer place to live and visit. I have particularly valued his integrity and straight talking approach. He will be deeply missed and I wish him every success for the future". Asked why Sir John was retiring, the PMOS said that the reason was for Sir John himself to announce.
Freedom of Information
Asked if the Government was planning to go ahead with the various measures on freedom of information, the PMOS said yes. Implementation of the Act was due to begin next year. Asked if additional safeguards had been built into the start date, the PMOS said no. It was not necessary to do so. The Act would be implemented across Whitehall. Asked which Minister had responsibility for the Freedom of Information Act, the PMOS said that it was Lord Falconer.
Butler Report
Asked about the process relating to the publication of the Butler Report, the PMOS said that we were still finalising the details. We would make an announcement as and when we were ready to do so. Asked if the Prime Minister would make a Statement in the House, the PMOS said that as the Leader of the House had told MPs last week, the Prime Minister planned to make a Statement on the day of publication, subject to the Speaker’s agreement. Asked if the Government had every intention of publishing the Report rather than sitting on it, the PMOS said that he did not recognise the latter suggestion. Questioned as to whether the Report had been sent to the printers, the PMOS said that that was a matter for the Inquiry team, not Downing Street. Asked when Downing Street was expecting to receive a copy of the Report, the PMOS said that he had no intention of getting drawn into a discussion about handling arrangements. These were questions for the Inquiry team. Asked if the Report was being printed by Government printers in the light of the leak of the Hutton Report, the PMOS said he would have thought that all possible safeguards had been taken.
John Edwards
Asked if the Prime Minister had sent a message of support to Senator John Edwards, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware.
Abortion
Asked again about the Prime Minister’s comments on abortion during PMQs yesterday, the PMOS said that as he had old journalists at yesterday afternoon’s briefing, the Prime Minister had not been signalling a change in Government policy or approach on abortion. He had simply been underlining the point that this was an issue which, in the past, had been up to individual MPs to consider and that that was the way it would be in the future. What Parliament decided to do was a matter for Parliament. He had been acknowledging the simple fact that as time moved on, so too did science.
EU Rebate
Asked if the Prime Minister was in favour of keeping the UK’s EU rebate, the PMOS said that if he was being asked about today’s FT report, he would point out that not only had the European Commission not yet published its proposals, but that this was a process which was due to last eighteen months. That said, we continued to believe that the rebate was justified because while it was a fact that, relative to other EU countries, the UK population per head had grown more prosperous over the past ten years, the distortions in expenditure still remained. This was partly a result of policies such as the CAP which tended to favour other countries. Asked if he was implying that the rebate was negotiable, the PMOS said that he would disagree with the journalist’s interpretation of his comments. Our position on the rebate had not changed. Put to him that any changes to the rebate had been ruled out in the European Constitution, the PMOS said that our approach to the rebate had not changed and we had made that clear in the negotiations on the Constitution. Put to him that the Constitution had only maintained the veto but had not ruled out negotiations, the PMOS agreed that the veto had been maintained but pointed out that it was based on unanimity. Asked to give a guarantee that there would be no negotiations on the rebate, the PMOS repeated that our position on this issue had not changed. Asked if the approach we were taking involved saying that we would veto any changes or that we would be willing to look at changes to take into account the possibility that other countries might have a justified claim for a rebate of their own, the PMOS repeated that our approach had not changed. We would continue to argue that our rebate was fully justified. In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that the UK, along with Germany and France, was pressing for expenditure to be limited to 1% of gross national income against the Commission’s proposal for 1.26%. In our view, that that had yet to be fully taken account of.
Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi
Asked if he would agree that it was an ‘utter farce’ that the British authorities could do nothing to keep Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi out of the UK, the PMOS said that the abhorrence which people might feel as a result of comments which were made did not change the Government’s obligation to act within the law, as Governments of all hues had done in the past. We recognised that this could create tensions, but it was necessary if freedom of expression was a fundamental belief. As we had underlined yesterday, Dr Al-Qaradawi’s comments and actions would be constantly monitored during his visit to the UK to ensure that he kept within the boundaries of the law on incitement. Put to him that the US believed in freedom of expression and yet they had not allowed Dr Al-Qaradawi in, the PMOS said that the US had different laws. In the UK, if you were going to act against someone, you had to do so on the explicit advice of the security services and law enforcement agencies. No advice had been received suggesting that Dr Al-Qaradawi posed a threat to this country’s security. Put to him by the Evening Standard that in the past we had kept out people whose presence had not been thought conducive to the country’s good and that in this particular case it would seem that the security services had been caught ‘napping’, the PMOS said that it was important to act according to the actual law, rather than what the Evening Standard might wish it to be. The power to exclude could either be used only for national security reasons or if there was a threat to public order. In both cases, the Home Secretary would have to be advised by either the security forces or the police that they had serious security concerns. In this particular case, they had not done so. Hence the judgement that had been taken to allow Dr Al-Qaradawi into the UK.
delicious
digg
facebook
