Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Safeguarding Children, Iran, Deputy Prime Minister’s Council Tax
Safeguarding Children
Asked if there could be 30-40 people on the sex offenders’ register working in schools, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that if journalists spoke to the department, they had used the word "small" and they had used it advisedly. His understanding was that it was not of the order suggested. Put to him that suggested he knew the number, the PMOS said the department had said small but quite rightly, as the Secretary of State had said in the House of Commons, she was not going to get involved in the business of giving provisional numbers either to the House of Commons or to the public until she was absolutely sure. The department had used the word "small" and they had done so advisedly. It was right and proper that they took the time, and be given the time, to investigate the matter properly.
Asked to explain why the Secretary of State had not cleared up the questions surrounding the specific case, such as who had authorised it, the PMOS said that Ruth Kelly wanted, and was seeking, to look at this matter in the round and at the same time look at the individual case not in a kneejerk way but in a considered way. That was the responsible thing to do when dealing with an issue as serious as this. As he had said this morning in borderline cases there were serious issues about whether there should be any discretionary element or whether there should be an automatic process.
If you went down the road of an automatic process you then had to have comparability of standards applied throughout the country. It would not do justice to the seriousness of the issue to turn it into a black and white issue. It was a more complex issue involving first and foremost the protection of children and also the possibility of taking away someone’s livelihood for life. Those were big decisions and it was right that we had a rigorous process that dealt with those decisions in a responsible and fair way. Put to him that Ruth Kelly had not placed any discretion on it saying caution should be the same as conviction, the PMOS said that was neither her position nor the current legal position. These were complicated issues.
If that were the case you would have to look at how people who would be given a caution could be given the right to appeal. Ruth Kelly had said in her statement that legally at the moment you could not do that therefore if you were going to go down that road you had to address the complex, a word she had used, legal issues involved. Again in order to address the seriousness of the issues involved it was important that everyone recognised the complex legal issues related to the rights of people to work. If you wanted to take away somebody’s right to work it did not mean you did not do it but it did mean you had to address the possible consequences. This was partly why the review was there, to consider that properly.
Asked whether it was right to say that Ruth Kelly was legally constrained from removing discretion without changing the law, the PMOS said that at the moment any employer could have access to criminal records that would show there was a caution. So employers had the information to base decisions on. In terms of the future it was better to let the review take its course. It would not take that long but it would take a bit of time. Therefore it was best to let the thinking be done on whether we went down this road. We had accepted that it was a legitimate question to ask whether cautions should be treated as automatic exclusions and put on the list but you needed to think through the legal implications of that first.
Asked whether he was saying it was civil redress or a statute preventing this now, the PMOS said that people could seek redress for wrongful dismissal and say that the process was not legal. We had to proceed in adherence to the law. As such if you went down this road you had make sure you acted within the law. It was not just about refusing jobs it was also about dismissing people. We had to be clear that the standards being applied up and down the country were the same on issues such as cautioning. We had to be clear that if we were moving towards this process of automaticity that it was based on the same application up and down the country. These were real issues that needed to be considered carefully. That did not mean not asking difficult questions, it did not mean not taking into account people’s genuine concerns, but we had to do so with due care.
Put to him that if you worked with children you needed a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) certificate and that these showed cautions, the PMOS said that there was also a duty of care on the employer to check the CRB but it was correct that they showed cautions. Put to him that equalising a caution and a conviction would remove the attractiveness of a caution and had that been pointed out by the police, the PMOS said he was not aware that it had been pointed out but it was obviously one of the things that had to be considered whether you would end up with people not being willing to take cautions because it automatically meant the end of their career.
It in itself was not a reason not to do it but you had to consider the implications of that. These were all legitimate questions that the review could consider in the short time that it would take. It was not a way of avoiding questions. It was a way of asking the right questions and making sure the answers were thought through so that the result was a proper child protection system. This was what we were all after and why we had introduced the sex offenders register in 1997, why we had welcomed the Bichard report and whey we had put a commitment to implement it in the Queen’s speech and now publish proposals at the end of February.
Asked what the practice had been before the register, the PMOS said that there had always been two ways to respond to someone who had been convicted or cautioned on offences. There were specified offences where it was automatically the case that somebody could not be employed in relation to children. There were then other offences where it had always been the case that there was an element of discretion which had in the end ended up on Minister’s desks. That had been the practice through successive administrations of both colours.
When the sex offenders’ register was introduced in 1997 there became two lists. The sex offenders’ list covered a broader range of offences than list 99 covered. It was not a different process. Officials prepared advice on discretionary cases that then went to Ministers. Ruth Kelly was asking the question as to whether it was appropriate in this day and age for a Minister to fulfil that role and whether it would be better done by either abolishing the discretion, bearing in mind the implications of that, or by having professionals take the decision.
Iran
Asked if the Prime Minister had any thoughts on the talks in Berlin and the Iranian President’s statement, the PMOS said the Prime Minister had spoken to Chancellor Merkel yesterday afternoon, and following the Foreign Secretary’s meeting with his E3 counterparts we were heartened that we all seemed to be on the same page in terms of recognising the seriousness of developments. We were all agreed that this was a matter that needed to be urgently considered by the IAEA Board and as such we were moving toward the possibility of the UN Security Council considering the matter.
It was important that Iran, despite what it’s President may say, sees that the international community was united in saying that this development was not permissible, that Iran had to comply with it’s international obligations and that that message was as loud and clear as possible. The message from Berlin was both loud and clear which was a good thing. Asked if the Prime Minister had spoken to President Bush about this in recent days, the PMOS said he did not give a running commentary on such conversations but they could take it that they had discussed the issue of Iran on a regular basis, including recently. If they looked at the remarks of the White House spokesman journalists would see that we were on the same page.
Deputy Prime Minister’s Council Tax
Asked if No10 was signed off to John Prescott’s statement, the PMOS said that this had arisen from a misunderstanding dating back to 1997. The Deputy Prime Minister along with the Commons Fees Office had regarded Admiralty House as his primary residence. The Deputy Prime Minister believed he was paying council tax out of the 10% of his salary taken for benefits in kind for Admiralty House. The department, on the other hand, had continued the practice of the previous occupant of regarding it as his secondary home and they had paid the council tax at the rate appropriate for a secondary home. The Deputy Prime Minister having realised this misunderstanding now had paid the council tax owing in full dating back to 1997. He had set out the case in his written statement.
Asked if there were any other members of the Cabinet who were similarly confused, the PMOS said he was not aware of any. This was a misunderstanding and the Deputy Prime Minister believed that he had been paying council tax from the 10% that came out of his salary and because it was one of those routine rollover matters the misunderstanding had continued between the Deputy Prime Minister and the department until it was brought to the Deputy Prime Minister’s attention. A classic case of the left hand not understanding what the right hand was up to. Asked to explain the 10% of salary, the PMOS said that whenever a minister moved into a grace and favour residence the rule was that you paid 10% of your ministerial salary toward the cost of utilities, services etc and John Prescott had believed that had included the council tax. Now that he had realised it had not he had paid it in full.
Asked what happened to ex-ministers and whether it was docked from their MP’s salary the PMOS said journalists should speak to the Cabinet Office for that sort of detail. Asked if the Prime Minister had paid all his council tax, the PMOS said that he had. Asked how it had come to light, the PMOS said that the matter was drawn to the Deputy Prime Minister’s attention in a public way and he discovered the misunderstanding because he had believed what was being asserted was wrong. Asked to characterise the Deputy Prime Minister’s mood, the PMOS said John Prescott had apologised for mistake and his mood was as people would expect it to be in such circumstances.
Asked how this affected Dorneywood, the PMOS said that it did not affect it. It was a trust and not his primary residence. The confusion had arisen because of a misunderstanding because the department had believed Admiralty House was his second residence and he and the fees office had believed it was his primary home. Asked if this meant he would be reclaiming council tax on other properties, the PMOS said it had not affected the way he paid council tax elsewhere.
delicious
digg
facebook
