Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Un Security Council Resolution, Chinese State Visit, 90 Days and Northern Ireland "on the runs"
UN Security Council Resolution
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) drew journalists’ attention to New York where the Security Council would vote on a new resolution for the continuation of the Mutli-National Force in Iraq (MNFI). The Security Council had more quickly than anticipated reached a consensus on this resolution and we had strong hopes that this would be passed with a full degree of support. It would extend the mandate for a further 12 months till December 2006. It would replace UNSCR 1546. It was not yet possible to give the new resolution a number until it was on the floor. The resolution was currently "in blue".
Chinese State Visit
Asked what our main objectives were, the PMOS said, as he had this morning, this was the third time the Prime Minister had met President Hu this year. He had met him at Gleneagles and again in September when the Prime Minister had visited Beijing and now as part of this State Visit. To be clear this was primarily a State Visit with a political visit added on, rather than the other way round. It was part of the continuing conversation that we had with the Chinese now. That conversation involved issues such as the economy and trade. It also involved climate change, a very important part of Gleneagles and the follow up conference held in London last month. Human rights and democracy were also addressed, as they had been in Beijing when the Prime Minister held a press conference with Premier Wen. We found that on human rights issues these were generally better dealt with in private than in public. Asked if they would address the issue of nuclear non-proliferation and China bringing pressure to bear on North Korea, the PMOS said that this was obviously also part of the continuing conversation as was the whole issue of counter terrorism. Asked if the Prime Minister would raise, as part of the trade talks, concerns about the levels of counterfeit goods entering the EU, the PMOS said that they were part of the continuing conversation between the EU Commission and the Chinese and we leant our support to that. Whether it came up specifically in these bilateral talks was another matter.
90 Days
Asked if the Prime Minister had been working on or seeing people in respect of the 90 days aspect of the legislation today, the PMOS said that the Home Secretary and the Home Office were leading the main effort. As such it was the Home Secretary who was primarily taking the lead in seeing people. The Prime Minster would do whatever he had to do, but it was right that the Home Secretary continued to take that lead role. Asked about the dismay John Denham MP had expressed on the radio this morning about the lack of preparation for the Bill’s passage and the party politicisation of the issue, the PMOS said, as he had this morning, he did not want to get into a dingdong with John Denham and as such would keep his remarks general. The proposal for 90 days came from the police. It was not a Prime Ministerial or Government proposal. It came from the police. The Prime Minister had made it clear that it was because this was the professional advice of the police that he was supporting it so strongly. Therefore what we were doing was supporting the police not imposing on the police an agenda that they did not support. We were following their lead. In terms of an evidence based assessment the PMOS referred journalists to the letter from Andy Hayman published on the 5th October and again yesterday. This had set out in detail why the professional police’s view was that 90 days was necessary. That letter was also supported by ACPO, Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, other Chief Constables and Lord Carlile. There had been quiet a considerable amount of thought and expertise put into this.
Asked if the was no possibility of the Government withdrawing the 90 days, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had said that anything less than 90 days would not be in the security interests of the country and this would guide us in what we did. Put to him that Sir Ian Blair had told journalists that 120 days would be even better, the PMOS said that the advice that we had been given from the police in the security meetings following 7/7 had been for 90 days.
Northern Ireland "on the runs"
Put to him that it was odd that we were putting forward measures about "on the runs" at the same time as the anti-terror legislation, especially as it was not in the Belfast Agreement, the PMOS said it was best to wait for the proposals to be put forward before commenting on the details. In terms of the general point there was a distinction between the "on the runs" issue and the anti terror bill. The key difference was that in Northern Ireland we were dealing with a conflict that was coming to an end. As part of that in the Good Friday Agreement we agreed to the early release of prisoners. That was the most difficult and painful part of the agreement and we fully acknowledged that. But the reality was we would not have got the Good Friday Agreement were it not for the agreement on prisoners. The "on the run" legislation was simply a logical extension of the prisoner release scheme because what it would do would be to address the issue of those who committed crimes before 1998, as had the prisoner release scheme. If those people had been convicted they would have been in the same position as prisoners. As such there was a logical extension there. It did not mean that it was not painful or difficult, but given that we now appeared to be in the final phases of the conflict it was right that we addressed that issue. We had made commitments that we would address this issue as long ago as 2003. Put to him that there appeared to be double standards concerning whether British troops were involved in some unsolved crimes, the PMOS said was that incorrect as anyone from the security forces who was convicted would be able to take advantage of that same mechanism. People needed to be clear about the distinction we had here in regard to Northern Ireland. We had a conflict coming to an end whereas in terms of the terrorism that the anti terror legislation was focused on, such as those who carried out the 7/7 attacks, they wanted to escalate the levels of terrorism not wind it down. That was the difference.
delicious
digg
facebook
