Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Sir Ian Blair, donations, Israel/Iran, Trident, super casinos, sex offenders sentencing, Tessa Jowell and rugby/misc
Sir Ian Blair
Asked what was the Prime Minister’s view about Sir Ian Blair taping a conversation he had had with the Attorney General, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the Attorney General’s office had put out a statement saying that the Commissioner and the Attorney General had spoken this morning and the Sir Ian had explained the circumstances. The Attorney General now considered the matter closed.
Asked how they had spoken if the Commissioner was on holiday, the PMOS said there was something called a telephone that they had used! Asked if it had been recorded, the PMOS said, amid laughter that the journalist got ten out of ten and should go to the top of the class!
Asked what was the Prime Minister’s view about Ministers conversations being taped, the PMOS replied that the relevant people had spoken, and they had decided that the matter was closed.
Put that the Attorney General had accepted the apology and the explanation, but what was the explanation, the PMOS said that it was a conversation between the two of them, and the PMOS said therefore it was not for him to brief on their conversation.
Asked if the Prime Minister had full confidence in Sir Ian Blair, the PMOS said: yes.
Asked if Sir Ian Blair had taped any other conversations, the PMOS said that he spoke for the Prime Minister, not for Sir Ian Blair, therefore, it was a matter for the Met Police.
Asked whether Sir Ian Blair had taped the Prime Minister, the PMOS replied that he was not aware of any suggestion that he had.
Asked if the Prime Minister had a view as to whether it was good or bad thing that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner had taped Ministers, the PMOS said that the important thing was that Sir Ian had set out his reasons to the Attorney General. The Attorney General had accepted them, and things should now move on.
Put that was Sir Ian now becoming rather a "figure of fun" or certainly, one of controversy, the PMOS replied that what was important was that we recognised that controversy was not new to the position of being the Commissioner of the Met Police because it was a difficult role. As the PMOS had said before, the Prime Minister recognised that it was a difficult role, and he also recognised the way in which Sir Ian had gone about fulfilling that role. The important thing was what the police in London were doing in terms of results.
Asked what were the Government’s policies about recording, the PMOS said that he was not a lawyer, so it was better that the journalist got the legal definition.
Put that it was common practice for civil servants to listen in to Ministerial phone conversations, the PMOS said that whilst it was common practice for civil servants to listen in, he wanted to distinguish between listening in and tape recording.
Asked again about Sir Ian Blair’s explanation, the PMOS said that it was a conversation between Sir Ian Blair and the Attorney General, and that was where it should remain.
Donations
Asked if the link between donations, loans and peerages was sheer coincidence, the PMOS replied that there was a Party element to the question. What the PMOS could say, however, was that this Government had introduced more transparency into Party donations in general than any other. It established the Electoral Commission which was independent from Government and which published regular details about donations. It also established the independent Lords Appointments Commission to make recommendations and appointments to the Lords. Therefore, it had done more than ever before, and in terms of moving forward, as the PMOS had said before, the Prime Minister believed that if things moved forward, it had to do so on the basis of a consensus amongst Parties as a whole. The Prime Minister’s approach therefore was "yes" to transparency, but people could not move unilaterally, but rather, there had to be consensus from other Parties.
Put that that suggested the Government was about to move further, the PMOS said no, what he was doing was indicating the basis on which the Prime Minister approached these issues, and the PMOS had indicated that in the past whenever people had asked him about this matter.
Asked about whether transparency had worked in the case of Chai Patel, the PMOS stressed that he did not want to comment on a particular case, as it was a Party matter, but he said that the criteria standards applied to all Parties, not just one. There was a difficulty here, which was that in general, if people got a situation where anyone who could donates to any political party knew that they were immediately going to be "done over" by the media, that did create a disincentive. Political parties did have to be funded in some way, so there was an issue here, but the rules were the same for everyone.
Asked if the whole process was now damaged, the PMOS said that there were issues around this which we were all aware of, and were a matter of continued debate. What, however, people had to be aware of was the full complexity of the issue, which was the reality. That reality was that the media spotlight did turn on anyone who was seen donating to a political party. Equally, in terms of proposals for state funding, for example, those could only forward on the basis on consensus. There was a genuine debate, and the Prime Minister accepted that, but we had to be aware of the full complexity of that debate.
Asked again if the process had been damaged, the PMOS replied that he could not comment without getting into party matters. What people should reflect was the steps that the Government had taken to introduce more transparency.
Asked if the Prime Minister supported those, including Jack Straw who had said that loans should be treated the same way as gifts, the PMOS said that again, any proposal like that needed to be the subject of an all-Party consensus because rules applied to all Parties. The Government believed that proposals should be the subject of an all-Party consensus, and therefore, if people put forward sensible proposals, they may be sensible, but equally, they needed to be subject to all-Party consensus.
Put that people won’t know what that consensus was if they were not told about it, the PMOS said he could not speak for the Labour Party. The Prime Minister’s view was that there should be discussions about such matters as consensus emerged.
Put that the public was entitled to know which Parties were in favour of things and which were against, the PMOS said that people should speak to the Labour Party.
Asked by the BBC to explain to the public further recent donations to the Labour Party by Mr. Patel, the PMOS said that as it was a Party matter, he could not comment but he understood that the Party had issued comments about the donation over the weekend.
Asked further about donations, the PMOS said that the issue over Mr. Patel was a Party matter and he could not talk about it.
Put that the Prime Minister had issued a list, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had not issued a list.
Asked if the Prime Minister had considered blocking the list on vindication of the reforms, the PMOS said that in terms of the list, as he had said before, nothing had changed. There had not been a list published yet, therefore people should wait until a list was published.
Asked if there was any way of withdrawing lists once they had been submitted, the PMOS replied that he was not an expert on the Lords Appointments Commissions, and he would not give a running commentary on it.
Israel/Iran
Asked why we were trying to sanction Iran, but not Israel as it too was developing nuclear weapons, the PMOS said that the approach to Iran was one that was spearheaded by the UN and it was in defiance of the UN. The question was whether Iran abided by its obligations under the UN. In terms of the President of Iran, he had put a new perspective on the issue by threatening to wipe out Israel. The PMOS said that again, it gave added cause for concern, so rather than addressing it through the perspective of Israel, people should address it through the perspective of the UN and ask the question: did a country have to abide by its UN obligations?
Put that Israel did not abide by its UN obligations, the PMOS replied that that was a separate issue, and not one to be confused.
Trident
Asked about Jack Straw’s comments about Trident today in an interview, the PMOS said that his understanding was that we were in the process of starting a process of thinking about it. The PMOS said he did not think the results of that process would be this month. Or the next.
Super Casinos
Asked in the light of reports suggesting over 20 casinos if there would be an assurance that there would only be one super casino, the PMOS replied that this report pre-dated the announcement of the upper limit regarding the numbers of casinos, and therefore it was out of date. That was the polite version!
Sex Offenders sentencing
Asked if the Prime Minister thought that sex offenders sentences should be cut, the PMOS said that in terms of sentence guidelines, as the PMOS understood it, they had not yet been published, therefore he did not want to comment on something that was still only in draft form. The PMOS said, however, that Government policy was to ensure that everything was done to encourage people to report sexual offences, rather than discourage them, and that was the criteria which we would apply. The PMOS also pointed out that we had introduced the ability to allow for offenders convicted of specific sexual offences, including rape, to remain in prison indefinitely until the level of risk to the public had been assessed as manageable. That did mean that in certain cases, if the level of risk could not be assessed as acceptable, people may never be released, so there was that fall-back. The PMOS said that primary basis by which we judged anything in this area was to encourage people to report offences, rather than to discourage them.
Tessa Jowell
Put that Tessa Jowell did not take part in discussion about Iran in Cabinet, and were there any other examples of Cabinet Ministers not taking part in discussions, the PMOS said that with regards to Tessa Jowell, some newspapers yesterday had reported that she had been "barred"; that was inaccurate. Tessa Jowell had voluntarily said that she would not participate or be present during discussions on Iran to ensure compliance with the Ministerial Code. Other Ministers acted according to the Code.
Asked if there were any other countries that Tessa Jowell did not take part in debate on, the PMOS replied not that he was aware of.
Rugby/misc
Asked if the Prime Minister was going to Twickenham on Saturday to watch the rugby, the PMOS said not that he was aware of.
Asked if the Prime Minister was "feeling strapped for cash", the PMOS said that the question was entirely a personal one, and therefore the PMOS suggested that the journalist ask the Prime Minister the same question at the press conference on Thursday and see what the Prime Minister’s response would be!
delicious
digg
facebook
