Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Aung San Suu Kyi, Iraq, Sarah’s Law, 7/7 Bombings, Sentencing-Vera Baird and Prisons
Aung San Suu Kyi
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman told journalists that the Prime Minister had released a statement regarding Aung San Suu Kyi’s birthday. The Prime Minister said that he was "bitterly disappointed that today Aung San Suu Kyi would spend her 61st birthday under house arrest, cut off from her family and friends, having had her house arrest extended yet again on 27th May. This was utterly unacceptable and goes against everything the UN Secretary General, most of Burma’s neighbours, the EU and the wider international community have repeatedly called for".
The PMOS said that Ian McCartney had summoned the Burmese Ambassador on the 15th June to press for her immediate release, and the other 1000+ political prisoners. Aung San Suu Kyi had been detained in total for over ten years.
Iraq
The PMOS welcomed the announcement today by Prime Minister Maliki that the Iraqis were taking over full control of Al Muthanna province, as pre-figured during our visit to Baghdad. That meant that they would take control of civil institutions, as well as security responsibilities. It did not mean, however, that the Australian, Japanese and the small number of British troops there would pull out tomorrow, but it did mean that there was a gradual transition, with the Iraqis taking control. The PMOS said that the Iraqi security forces were already in control of many day to day operations there, and we were there increasingly in a support role, and the transition would begin to take place. It was a significant step on the way to Iraq taking control of its own destiny, and therefore, we welcomed that.
Asked if there was a deadline, such as the end of July, when the foreign forces would pull out, and also, did it follow that the British troops would be redeployed, the PMOS replied that in terms of setting the timetable, that was for the Iraqis, first and foremost. We would respond to that. In terms of the deployment of troops, that was a matter for the commanders on the ground. The PMOS said that having had the announcement today, obviously there would be discussions between the multinational forceand the Iraqis about timeframes. Following that, operational commanders would make decisions.
Sarah’s Law
Asked if anything had changed from when Jack Straw had ruled out the law to today, the PMOS said that the important and difficult thing in this area was as both the Home Secretary and Gerry Sutcliffe had made clear, was to get the balance right, between on the one hand, protecting the public and giving them as much information as possible, and on the other, ensuring that we did not have viliglantism. That was the balance that had to be struck. What was important, therefore, was that Gerry Sutcliffe went to the United States, and looked at how they did things there. We were not planning immediately to import US laws, but we did need to consider, and it was right to do so, how these operate, and look at the differences, and what had been successful there.
Put that nothing had changed, the PMOS said what had changed was that we were actively and proactively looking at how we could give more information to the public, and that was the right thing to do. The Home Secretary had made it clear that his view was that "I start from the position that information should no longer remain the exclusive reserve of officialdom". The switch could be seen, but nobody underestimated the difficulties.
Put that nothing had changed in terms of what was happening out in the country, the PMOS said that he disagreed. The Home Secretary had identified 11 centres where he now said there should be no-one with paedophile convictions. That was a change.
Put that was it the case that the Government had not changed its mind, only the headline, the PMOS said he was no longer shocked or surprised by such cynicism. The PMOS underlined that the Home Secretary had said that no child sex offender should reside in accommodation near schools. This was something practical and different. We now had a body of experience in the US which was worth studying, and therefore, before people’s cynicism kicked in, it was right that we gave Gerry Sutcliffe the time to go there and see what lessons, if any, we could learn.
Asked what had led Ministers to believe that there should either be a) a change of policies or b) what had changed in terms of knowledge or experience to lead the Government to examine a law change that they had previously rejected, the PMOS replied that everybody understood the genuine difficulties in this area, so it should not be reduced down to ping pong. There was genuine concern in communities about these kinds of issues, and it was right and proper that the Home Secretary took account of those genuine concerns. Where there was a body of experience, as there was in the US in dealing with the release of controlled information, then that was worth studying. Finally, yes, there was, and remained, persistent pressure to publish this sort of information. Therefore, it was sensible for the Government to take a fresh look at this to see if there was a way of balancing the conflicting needs and demands, and to take account of the experience that had been acquired as well. What was clear was that this was an issue of public concern, which was not going to go away. That did not mean, therefore, that there was an easy answer, as there was not one, but what the response of the Government did was where there was an issue of genuine concern, it was constantly looked at to see if there was a way of trying to balance the conflicting issues, and that was what we were doing.
Asked when were Ministers made aware that some paedophiles lived near schools, and when was the Prime Minister told, the PMOS said that he was not going to get into processology. The important point was that the Home Secretary had made his announcement, and we were now doing something about it.
7/7 Bombings
Put that the Government had not had the "full picture" of what was known about the 7/7 bombers, as written in the Times today, and how had it responded to a new request for an independent inquiry, the PMOS replied that he did not do book reviews. There had been an objective independent scrutiny of the factors leading up to 7/7. That scrutiny was carried out by a body accountable to Parliament, which was the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). That committee had published its findings, and if people looked back at the time of publication, people recognised that it was a serious piece of work.
The PMOS said that the committee’s conclusions were that there was not an intelligence failure. The fact that there had been a serious piece of work into this area had to be balanced against the indisputable fact that a further inquiry would divert resources from the ongoing fight against terrorism. Therefore, the likely benefit had to be balances against very real cost. The Prime Minister’s view remained that since the independent ISC had looked at it, a further inquiry would be an unnecessary diversion of resources.
Asked if the Prime Minister had asked the ISC to look into events surrounding the Forest Gate raid, the PMOS said that the ISC decided what it did, and it was not a matter for the Prime Minister
Asked what the Downing Street view was about Trevor Phillips’ words on Radio Four about rebalancing race relations, the PMOS said that recruitment for the Met was an operational matter.
Put that it was a policy matter, the PMOS said that we took into account the views of the Met. However, they had to make their operational assessment first.
Sentencing-Vera Baird
Put that Vera Baird appeared to say the opposite to the Lord Chancellor about judges, the PMOS said that the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary had made clear the Government’s view. As a result, we were having a look at the Criminal Justice System, and the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor would be carrying out aspects of that. The important thing was that we recognised that there were two things that we needed to balance. On the one hand, there was legitimate public concern, and the Home Secretary had articulated that, and on the other, we had the need to maintain an independent judicial system. The important thing was that we looked and saw how we could ensure that those two remained in kilter, and that was what would happen over the next few weeks.
Asked if there was a view that the judges did not do what they should have done, or was there a view that the judges could not do what they needed to as the law did not allow them to, the PMOS replied that the important thing was that we looked to see precisely what the nature of the problem was, and that we came up with coherent responses to it. The Home Secretary was doing that kind of fundamental review across the Home Office, as was appropriate for a new Home Secretary, especially when faced with the issues that he was faced with. The Lord Chancellor would be looking at the sentencing aspects of that as well.
Asked how there could be two Ministers who had opposite views on the same subject, the PMOS replied that where there were judgements which in some way the public were concerned about, the Home Secretary had articulated concern about them. Equally, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General had made clear that we had an independent judicial process, and as the PMOS had said last week, we were very proud of that as a country. The important thing was that we brought the two things into line, and that was why we were having the review.
Asked if Vera Baird was still a member of the Government, the PMOS replied that she was, and a valued one at that.
Asked if Vera Baird would be reprimanded for her views, the PMOS said that she remained a member of the Government, and we looked forward to the outcome of the review process.
Prisons
Asked what the Prime Minister’s take was on building more prisons, the PMOS said that as people knew, we had been focused on more prison spaces. The PMOS said in the last two years prison capacity had gone up by 4000, and current programme would deliver around 1000 new places in 2007, taking the total capacity up to 80,400 by 2007. Therefore, we were addressing the issue.
Asked if there was no need to go further, the PMOS said that we would see what there was, and there was no doubt at all that that would be part of the Home Secretary’s overview.
Asked if the Prime Minister was in favour of prison ships, the PMOS said that in terms of the detail of how prisons operated, that was a matter for the Home Office and the Prison Service.
delicious
digg
facebook
