Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Spokesman on: Human Rights and John Hutton-Pensions
Human Rights
Asked about Dr. Reid’s recent statement about the Afghan hijackers, and did it reflect anything that was said in Cabinet and was there going to be anything done about it, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that what we could do about it was appeal, as we had done. That was why, as people would expect, the PMOS could not comment further on what Dr. Reid had said about the particular case. In general terms, however, the PMOS pointed journalists back to what the Prime Minister had said at the press conference, which was that if someone had committed a serious offence as a foreigner, then the belief that the public would have was that they should not be able to stay in Britain. In this particular case, since we were going to appeal, the PMOS could not comment any further.
Asked if the Prime Minister had any intention of introducing fresh legislation, as he had mentioned doing so before, the PMOS replied that we kept pushing the law forward to align it more closely with the concerns of the public, and we did that on a whole range of topics. The PMOS said that from time to time, that was tested in the courts. If it was tested in the courts, then we would take measures, such as control orders, to address that issue. In terms of the intention, and the determination to deliver on that intention, that was not in doubt.
Asked what would the Prime Minister say to those critics who would say that this "shambles" was all the Prime Minister’s fault for passing the Human Rights Act which had created all the trouble, the PMOS referred the journalist to an analysis by Joshua Rozenberg which referred to the European Convention on human rights, which was in practice long before the Human Rights Act. The PMOS said that it was a gross oversimplification to put this all under the Human Rights Act. In many ways, the issues which had to be addressed went beyond that to the European Convention.
Asked if the Prime Minister had concerns about the way the Human Rights Act was being implemented, because time after time, criminals were being let out and not deported because of the Human Rights Act, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister in the past had addressed what he believed was a misinterpretation of the Human Rights Act if it conflicted with the rights of the public in general. The Prime Minister had pointed out that in other countries in Europe, they had no problems in aligning the two issues, even though they too were signatories to the Human Rights Act. As the Prime Minister had said earlier this week, there was an issue about how we aligned the issues of the human rights of the public with the human rights of the individual. That was an issue, as the Prime Minister had said, we were prepared to test, and test again, if necessary.
Asked about the Prime Minister’s words last night about the abuse of common sense, and that he thought that it was the judges that were misinterpreting human rights, the PMOS said that given that we now into an appeal on this particular case, he had to be careful about what he said.
Put that the PMOS had said that there was a misinterpretation about the Human Rights Act, the PMOS replied that he was not going to get drawn into those particular circumstances, but it was fair to draw people’s attention to the Prime Minister’s comments in general.
Asked if the Prime Minister thought that the law was "alright", the PMOS said that we would continue to look at how it was operating. The Prime Minister had pointed out that in other countries, there were not these problems.
Asked if this was another case of Britain "gold-plating" EU legislation, the PMOS replied that however it was described, it was a fact that other signatories to the Human Rights Act did not have these problems, and therefore, there was an issue about why we did.
Asked if the basic problem was that it was based on the Human Rights bill from 1953, and not the Human Rights Act, the PMOS replied that again, there were signatories to that as well, who dealt with these problems in a rational way. Again, there was an issue about interpretation.
Put that there was also the UN, where we dealt with Iran and other problems, all of which were going to be talked about in a speech by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister said that the intention was still to make the speech in America in the not too distant future. We had made it clear for a variety of means that the speech fell more naturally after the formation of the Iraqi Government, and that was getting to the final stages.
John Hutton-Pensions
Asked if John Hutton was "frozen out" of this morning’s meetings and kept in an anti-room in Downing Street after being told he was not required, as was reported in the Evening Standard tonight, and did he assert that the Turner Report be delivered in full to give the Prime Minister victory, the PMOS said that he was not going to give a running commentary on the discussions on pensions. The time to talk about that was when the final decisions were announced. As people knew, we did give a welcome to the Turner Report and that remained the case. Regarding John Hutton, the PMOS said that the analysis contained in the Evening Standard was wrong. Mr. Hutton was an integral part of the discussions on pensions, and was an integral part of the decision-making process. As was his right as the DWP Secretary of State, he had done a lot of very good work in shaping our response to the Turner Report.
Asked again if Mr. Hutton was kept in an anti-room in Downing Street, and told that he did not need to attend, the PMOS said that as people knew, he did not give a running commentary on discussions between the Prime Minister and Cabinet colleagues. The important point was that John Hutton had been not only in the loop, but part of the decision-making process at all stages of shaping our response to the Turner Report, and that remained the case. The implicit message in the Evening Standard report was completely wrong.
Asked if it was the case that the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor was only about pensions, the PMOS replied that it was very nice of the journalist to ask the same question a different way round, but the same response still applied, as the PMOS did not give a running commentary on meetings the Prime Minister had with Cabinet colleagues, either singular, or plural.
Put that on Monday, the Prime Minister had said that John Prescott would be heavily involved in the process of putting forward the pensions proposals, and the Conservatives had said today that the pensions crisis was in the hands of John Prescott, and what was Mr. Prescott’s role, and was he involved in talks today, the PMOS thanked the journalist for the third time to comment on the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. The same response still stood. In terms of the overall response to the Turner report, it was a response from the Government as a whole, and therefore involved several departments, and one that people would expect to be shaped by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister working with colleagues. That would be the case.
Asked about Mr. Prescott’s committees, the PMOS said that we would announce them at the right time. The Prime Minister was correct in saying the Mr. Prescott was playing an important role in this, as people would expect.
Put that the Prime Minister had said on Monday that the Government had not yet made up its mind on pensions as a whole, and was it closer to doing so, the PMOS said again that he would not give a running commentary. We would announce our position when we would announce it.
delicious
digg
facebook
