Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Sex Offender Lists, Iran, Rolls Royce, Neil Kinnock/Education
Sex Offenders Lists
Asked when Ruth Kelly resigned, would she become the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) replied that as he had made clear yesterday, Ruth Kelly’s position remained unchanged, and would remain unchanged.
Asked if the Prime Minister knew who authorised that Paul Reeve should not go on List 99, the PMOS set out the position. Ruth Kelly had quite properly said that what happened in the DFES was her responsibility. There had always been borderline cases in this sensitive area, and the decision-making process had remained substantially the same for decades on how people dealt with those few borderline cases. As a result of the Bichard report, we were already looking at a new vetting scheme, and Ruth Kelly in her statement would deal with the issue of how and when that would be implemented. The PMOS said it was right to look again at not only each borderline case, but also the overall decision-making process that had been in place for decades, and had been used by successive Governments.
It was not a way of avoiding questions, but rather, it was the reverse. It was a way of having a route and branch look at the underlying issues, such as: should Ministers be the ones who dealt ultimately with the cases. Was there uniformity of approach from the police, and how could we get the police advice more easily into the decision-making process? This was not an issue about an individual decision; it was an issue about the process, and how we fitted and modernised that process within the overall trend of how we dealt with child protection, and how we had dealt with child protection, which started with the Sex Offenders List being introduced in 1997.
Asked if that then suggested that people would never know who specifically authorised that particular decision, and therefore, whatever the consequences might be, was it down to Ruth Kelly, the PMOS said that as Ruth Kelly had said, she took full responsibility for this matter, and what happened in her department. It was better to deal with this as a policy issue, rather than trying to turn it into a blame game. This process had been handled in this way for decades, so it was the process that we had to look at, as well as the small number of borderline cases.
Asked why it had taken this particular case to make a review happen, when the Bichard report had been published over 18 months ago, the PMOS replied that we were already committed in The Queen’s Speech to implementing the Bichard Report, and we were already looking at a new vetting scheme. What this case had highlighted were the underlying issues, therefore, it was right and proper to use that to look again fundamentally at the review. Ruth Kelly had said that she would come back to give a full report to Parliament on the matter. That was the way to deal with this, and Ruth Kelly would set it out more clearly in the House later today.
Asked if the Prime Minister felt that anybody on the Sex Offenders List should automatically go on List 99, the PMOS said that although it was a legitimate question, people should not get away from the fact that there were cases which had always been considered borderline. The PMOS gave a hypothetical example: somebody logged onto an adult pornography site which was a legal thing to do, and on that site was also child pornography.
Should that person go on the List and lose their job as a result of that; that was the question. Was there uniformity of cautioning policy across the country? Should a decision be taken with these borderline cases by Ministers? Or should it be left to professionals? The PMOS said those were legitimate questions. Therefore, there were difficult dilemmas that had to be resolved, and there were difficult decision-making processes that had to be looked at again, in the light of where we were now, rather than where we were when this process was originally set up. The way in which people accessed pornography had changed because of the internet, and the way in which people viewed pornography had also changed, so therefore, we had to update our processes as well. That was what the review was essentially about.
Asked to explain the paradox of the Prime Minister talking about reversing the burden of truth when dealing with petty crime, and yet jumping through hoops to give people who had admitted their guilt by accepting a police caution, the benefit of the doubt when put in charge of young children, the PMOS replied that what we had done by establishing this review was accept that there were legitimate questions to be asked. One of which was: should people who were given a caution automatically be put on List 99, and therefore lose their job?
We had accepted that that was a legitimate question. The PMOS said it was not unfair to say that the review should be given a short time in which to consider that type of question, because there would then be other questions that would lead on from that. Was there uniformity of cautioning policy by the police up and down the country? The PMOS said the journalist was right to pose the question, and it would be one that would be considered by the review. The PMOS said he was not going to pre-empt the outcome of the review.
Put that a possible explanation was that the police had been over-zealous with the people they were arresting, and if another Government department thought that there was nothing wrong, would part of the review look at what the police were "up to", the PMOS replied that part of the review would look at how the police advice was fed into the process. Part of that had to be was there a uniformity in standard, for example, in cautioning, and did all police forces approach this in the same way? Part of the reason why there had been an element of Ministerial discretion had been to deal with that kind of issue.
Asked if it was a Home Office matter, rather than a DFES matter, and there would the review look into it, the PMOS said it had to look at all the elements of it, including the role of the police, in a positive, as well as a negative sense.
Asked to clarify that the review was going to be about the process, and not about the individual case, the PMOS said the review was about two things. It was looking back over the small number of borderline cases there had been since the Sex Offenders List was set up in 1997, and also, the process. Clearly, yes, there was concern about individual cases, but individual cases would arise out of a process, therefore it needed to be looked at.
Asked what was the point of a review of the Sex Offenders List if people were not automatically included on List 99, the PMOS said that the Sex Offenders List dealt with all kinds of things. There were certain specified offences where people were automatically barred from dealing with children if they had committed that offence. The whole point of the Bichard review, and the new vetting scheme that we were planning post-Bichard review was to unify those two things. Clearly, as part of that, people had to consider questions such as: if someone received a caution, were they automatically excluded from their job?
Asked if the review failed that approach, would it require legislation, the PMOS said we did need to introduce legislation to implement the Bichard report, and Ruth Kelly would address the issue of how that could be done in her statement.
Put that the implication of what was said was that the Prime Minister thought it was unfair for criticism to be directed at an individual, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister’s view was that there had been a process to deal with a small number of borderline cases that had been in place for decades. Therefore, in terms of how that process operated, and the criteria under which it operated, we not only needed to reassure the public about the individual cases, but we also needed to fundamentally look at the overall process and see whether it was fit for modern day use. We also needed to see how it took into account and implemented the Bichard review.
Iran
Asked who the Foreign Secretary was meeting in Berlin, and what was the message, the PMOS said that Jack Straw was meeting his counterparts from France and Germany. The message would be that the Prime Minister had spoken to Chancellor Merkel yesterday, and there was a recognition that the latest developments in Iran were serious. What we needed to agree was what happened next. We had argued for some time for a referral to the UN, and we believed it should be considered next by the IAEA Board. We hoped that that would be the case, and we were happy to go through the procedure and argue a case at each step of that process, and we would do so. The PMOS said that today was the starting point of that process.
Put that presumably, that meant that the Prime Minister had spoken to Chancellor Merkel on the back of the German Deputy Foreign Minister who had said that it might be counter-productive to refer Iran to the Security Council, and what did Chancellor Merkel think, the PMOS said it was generally the case that Prime Ministers agreed to speak to each other, rather than as a result of what happened when Deputy Foreign Ministers spoke. The PMOS said this had been a pre-arranged phone call, and he was not going to get into the details of it. It was for the German Government as a whole to brief on what their position was. Chancellor Merkel was meeting President Bush, where she would no doubt have a chance to set out her views herself.
Asked if there had been any phone conversations between President Bush and the Prime Minister about Iran this week, the PMOS said he did not give a running commentary on when the Prime Minister spoke to President Bush. People could take it that they shared views on Iran and other subjects on a regular basis. There was no difference in our position and that of the US Government, and the PMOS referred journalists to the remarks of his counterpart in Washington.
Rolls Royce
Asked what communication the Prime Minister had had with President Bush about Rolls Royce, the PMOS replied that we did not disclose on the Prime Minister’s behalf discussions he had on commercial matters. We had always made it clear that we supported British industry, but we did not discuss individual conversations about either commercial matters, or ones with President Bush. They remained private.
Put that the tone had been reported that "this was a matter of serious national interest", the PMOS said we obviously took every opportunity to promote British industry, but he was not going to get into discussing individual contracts or conversations.
Neil Kinnock/Education
Asked to comment on the Guardian interview with Neil Kinnock’s views on education reforms, the PMOS said that the NAO report yesterday set out our position on education very clearly. The number of failing schools had halved since 1997. Equally, however, there was a lot more still to be done to bring all schools up to the same standard. That was precisely why we had to apply the lessons of those schools that had become successful, and apply it in a way which brought all schools up to the same level. In terms of selection, the White Paper only altered the rules of submission in one way, which was to toughen up the adjudicators’ code by making their guidelines applicable for three years, rather than one year. In terms of the overall approach, it was to keep building on the success that we had had with City Academies and Trust schools, but equally, there was no change to the process.
delicious
digg
facebook
