Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: PM’s Bristol Visit and Criminal Justice Speech, British Nuclear Deterrent, Defence Debate and David Walton
PM’s Bristol Visit and Criminal Justice Speech
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) explained that the main focus of the visit to Bristol would be law and order. Tomorrow he would deliver the first of a series of lectures on domestic policy, in the same way that he had recently done on foreign policy. This series came under the banner or headline of "Our Nations Future".
The speech tomorrow would reflect on three things, the Prime Minister’s own personal experience of law and order, which as they all knew stretched back to his days in opposition. Second, expert opinion, some of which had been commissioned specifically for this speech. The Prime Minister had hosted a seminar with experts on the 7 June. Five different experts contributions were now posted on our website. We did not agree with all the opinions but the Prime Minister thought it was important that people had access to that range of opinion. The third strand would focus on front line experience and to update him on that the Prime Minister had asked to spend the afternoon in an inner city area of Bristol speaking to local people about how the government’s law and order measures had worked so far and what further changes they wanted to see, which he would then reflect on in his speech.
The Prime Minister would argue that we needed a proper, considered, intellectual and political debate about the nature of liberty in the modern world. He would present an historical analysis of how and why crime, immigration and the criminal justice system had changed over the last century and argue that the modern world had changed the nature of the debate between security and liberty. He would say that if we did not rebalance the system across a range of areas the rights of law-abiding citizens would be at risk.
Asked if the speech would talk about the balance between liberty and terrorism, the PMOS said that it would obviously be part of it as it was part of what had changed the overall balance. One clear difference between this century and the twentieth century was the nature of terrorism. Asked what had changed the balance in regard to domestic crime, the PMOS said that he was not going to pre-empt too much of the speech, but organised crime was different in part because methods had changed with technology and because of that organised crime could be much more global in it’s operation. Put that antisocial behaviour was not a new phenomenon, the PMOS agreed but suggested that people’s expectations that it should be dealt with had grown. People quite rightly did not believe that they should put up with antisocial behaviour. The government had also developed over the last few years new methods to deal with that kind of problem, which had not been there in the past.
British Nuclear Deterrent
Asked whether the Prime Minister agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the need to retain our independent nuclear deterrent for the long term, the PMOS said that if people looked back at the government’s manifesto they would see that it said we were committed to retain the independent nuclear deterrent. The Prime Minister had also spoken about this issue with Jeremy Paxman during the General Election campaign. In that interview he had said that we had to retain our nuclear deterrent and that we had had an independent nuclear deterrent for a long time. He went on to say that in principle he believed that it was important to retain our own independent deterrent, that he believed it was the right thing for the country and an important part of our defence.
Asked whether the Prime Minister thought we should replace Trident, the PMOS said that decisions would be taken in due course. There would also be a proper debate and announcement at the appropriate time. What the Prime Minister had said, what the Chancellor had said and what the manifesto said were of a piece. Asked if Britain could maintain a long term nuclear deterrent without Trident, the PMOS said that the government would address the issue and as the Prime Minister had already said it would address it in this parliament. It was undoubtedly a difficult issue. It would undoubtedly lead to proper debate and discussion, but, as in other areas, the government and the Prime Minister believed we had to face up to these difficult decisions in the interests of the security of the country and to maintain the country’s position in world affairs.
Asked what the point of a debate was if the government’s mind was already made up, the PMOS said that we would announce the decision in a white paper at the appropriate time and there would be a proper debate and discussion of that. Asked whether there would be a vote, the PMOS said there would be a proper discussion and debate on the government’s decision and the reasons set out for that decision. Asked if that meant the form of the debate had not yet been decided, the PMOS said that he was simply reflecting what the Prime Minister had said yesterday in the House of Commons.
Asked whether the government accepted that replacing Trident would cause tensions over the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the PMOS said that the time to have that kind of detailed debate would be when the decision had been announced. Asked whether Downing Street had been surprised by the Chancellor’s remarks, the PMOS said that given the government’s position as stated in the manifesto and given what the Prime Minister had said to Jeremy Paxman during the election, the Chancellor’s remarks were of a piece. Put that the key phrase used by the Chancellor had been " for the long term" and that this had been different therefore the question was whether the Prime Minister agreed with that, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister in his answer to Jeremy Paxman had said that we had to retain our nuclear deterrent, that we had had an independent nuclear deterrent for a long time, and that in principle he believed that it was important to retain our own independent deterrent. Therefore both comments were of a piece.
Put that the Chancellor had indicated today that he was comfortable about the idea of a vote, as the government would win, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had set out the position yesterday that there would be a proper discussion. Asked why now was not the proper time for a debate, the PMOS said that it was because governments had to look at and assess the different options, then set out those options properly so that people understood why decisions were made. Asked whether that process had begun yet, the PMOS said, as they all knew, that he did not get into processology. But people could be assured that for a decision of this magnitude the proper procedures and processes would be gone into and all the options would be assessed.
Asked about the timetable, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had said that a decision had to be made in this parliament. If you put that timeframe around the question then that had its own implications for the timing of the process but we would not be providing a running commentary on that process. Asked whether the Prime Minster had an open mind on this question, the PMOS suggested that they had had plenty of time to assess the Prime Minister’s comments from the Jeremy Paxman interview where he had said that in principle it was important to retain an independent deterrent but that the decision had not yet been taken.
Defence Debate
Asked why the Defence Secretary was not available to lead the annual defence debate in the Commons, the PMOS said that the Defence Secretary was in Iraq. He was liaising with the new Iraqi government about Basra and elsewhere. This was important work.
David Walton
Asked if there were any words on the death of David Walton, the member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister was obviously saddened by the news.
delicious
digg
facebook
