Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Carbon Neutral-energy efficiency, Sir Richard Mottram-intelligence, Prime Minister Olmert, Anti social behaviour and Climate Change
Carbon Neutral-energy efficiency
Asked for further information about the Government’s carbon neutral scheme, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the Government would go carbon neutral by 2012, reducing our overall emissions by 30% by 2020, and offsetting the remainder. This would save an estimated 800,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, which was the equivalent of taking 750,000 cars off the road.
Asked what was being offset, the PMOS replied that we were both reducing our overall emissions by being more energy efficient, and also offsetting the remainder as well.
Asked if that meant planting trees, the PMOS said that he was told that planting tress was the simplistic view of it. People were also investing in energy efficiency in third world countries, for example, too.
Sir Richard Mottram-intelligence
Asked if Sir Richard Mottram had been told about the raid in Forest Gate, the PMOS said that he was not going to get into detail on this subject for obvious reasons. The PMOS said that if the journalist was referring to yesterday’s Observer article, it was inaccurate.
Asked why was the article inaccurate, the PMOS said again that the story was inaccurate, and what was important at this time was that we recognised that the security agencies as a whole took a certain view on intelligence, and as the Prime Minister said last week, he fully supported them in what they did and believed that they were right to act on that intelligence. That remained the case.
Asked what the mechanism was whereby Sir Richard Mottram would learn the lessons of what went right and what went wrong, the PMOS said that he was not going to get ahead or comment of operational matters. People could take it that there was a whole system whereby matters such as these were assessed. The important point, however, was that if it was viewed by all concerned to be credible intelligence, then it was the duty of the appropriate authorities to act on that, and the Prime Minister fully supported all concerned in doing so.
Asked if the Prime Minister shared Ken Livingstone’s view that there was a lot of confidence in Sir Ian Blair and the Metropolitan Police, but far less confidence in MI5’s relations with the Muslim community, the PMOS said again that the Prime Minister fully supported all those who were involved in mounting this operation, and the PMOS pointed journalists to the recent comments of Andy Hayman.
Put that the Prime Minister had chosen to publicly give the police and security services his backing, and was that based on anything in particular, and why did he do that then, the PMOS said that again, he was not going to comment on the detail of the particular investigation. The Prime Minister was fully aware of the kind of judgements that had to be made on this kind of operation. The Prime Minister was also fully aware of the nature of the threat that we continued to face, and therefore, in terms of the balance and the balanced judgement that had to be made, the Prime Minister believed that it was absolutely right to fully support those who had a very difficult task of making those balanced judgements on all sides.
Asked if Sir Ian Blair had quoted the Prime Minister as supporting him when he did not want the IPPC to "rush in" after the de Menezes shooting, and was that correct, the PMOS replied that again, there was an IPPC investigation going on, so it would be wrong for the PMOS to comment. The Prime Minister continued to give his full support to Sir Ian Blair.
Asked if the Prime Minister regretted in any way the damage that seemed to have been done relations in the Muslim community, the PMOS said that the question took a one-sided view of the opinions expressed from within the Muslim community. There had been those who had expressed full understanding of why the police needed to operate in these kinds of circumstances, and therefore, we should not take a one-sided caricatured view of opinions within the Muslim community. The PMOS said that of course, we all recognised the need to explain why the police had to act in these circumstances, but we believed that that understanding was there within the Muslim community, but of course there were critics. Those critics had every right to express their views.
Prime Minister Olmert
Asked if there was any specific message or outcome that the Government was looking for as a result of Prime Minister’s Olmert’s meeting with the Prime Minister today, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister obviously wanted to welcome Prime Minister Olmert in his first official visit to London as Prime Minister. They would clearly want to talk about the similar terrain that was gone over at the White House, and we welcomed what Prime Minister Olmert had said there about his preference being for a negotiated settlement. That was our strong preference as well. Equally, we recognised that there had to be a viable partner to negotiate with on the Palestinian side, but we believed that a negotiated settlement was in the interests of all sides. The PMOS said that everyone knew what the answer to the issue was. It was a two-state solution, and therefore, the sooner that both sides started talking about that, the better.
Asked if the Chancellor would be offering any package as to how it could be funded, the PMOS recommended that the journalist talk to the Treasury for further details. In terms of funding, however, the PMOS reiterated that the funding we had continued to channel funds to the Palestinian people, but not to Hamas. That would continue to be the case for as long as Hamas did not recognise Israel, and condoned the violence directed against Israel.
Anti social behaviour
Asked for further information about John Reid’s contribution to the Cabinet Committee and who should stop moaning, the PMOS replied that Louise Casey had said this morning that this was never a detailed proposal, but rather, it was part of a discussion. The Government’s approach was precisely that we did want people to complain and draw attention to anti social behaviour in their area, and to raise their voices to ensure it was addressed. Louise Casey had put this properly in perspective, as she said that we had never encouraged people to be vigilantes, nor would we encourage people to do so. However, what we did do was to encourage people to actively draw attention to problems in their areas. The problem was when people became so down-hearted, that they did not believe anyone would listen. The message was that the Government believed that the Government, police, and local authorities should be listening, and were listening.
Put that the tone of the slogan to a degree showed that the public had some disenchantment with the situation, the PMOS said that as Louise Casey had made clear, this was not a slogan which was official Government policy.
Asked if it had been withdrawn, the PMOS said again that it was never Government policy. What the discussion was: how did people encourage communities to be proactive in raising awareness of particular problems in particular estates? That was something that we would make no apology for whatsoever.
Asked if the phrase was a discussion point, the PMOS replied that it was part of a discussion that was one idea among many in a discussion document.
Asked if it was not, therefore, a prototype of an advertising slogan, the PMOS said that was his understanding.
Climate Change
Asked if the Prime Minister was going to rule out climate change incentives for nuclear power plants, the PMOS replied that people should wait for the energy review and see the actual facts, rather than speculating.
Asked when the energy review would be released, the PMOS replied that we had promised it before the summer recess and therefore it would be before the summer recess.
delicious
digg
facebook
