Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Charles Clarke, Northern Ireland, Human Rights Act and Football
Charles Clarke
Put to the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) that Charles Clarke’s letter to the Select Committee made clear that he knew nothing about the foreign prisoners being deported in March 2005, and had the Prime Minister also known nothing about the foreign prisoners being deported, the PMOS said that we had gone over this at the time, and the PMOS had nothing to add, as he was not getting into processology. We had set out the sequence of when people had known what, and there was nothing further to say.
Put that why it mattered was implicit in Mr. Clarke’s letter was that the senior civil servants, including the Permanent Secretary, failed to report to the Secretary of State about a major policy problem, and that had implications for future policy, rather than processology in the past, and had Ministers or the Prime Minister known about the arrangement, the PMOS said that he was still keeping to what he had said. The important thing was that these matters were now being reviewed in detail, and it would be that which would determine future policy.
Asked why the Prime Minister had "got rid" of Charles Clarke, the PMOS said that the reasons were set out at the time. What was said at the time was that Mr. Clarke was offered another Cabinet post, but he chose not to take it. That was Charles Clarke’s decision. The Prime Minister had paid tribute to Mr. Clarke’s work at the Home Office, particularly during the very difficult days surrounding 7/7.
Put that Charles Clarke had made it clear in his letter that he had done nothing wrong, and given that the Prime Minister had agreed with that, it was curious that he had got rid of Mr. Clarke, the PMOS replied that the reasons for the change were set out at the time.
Asked if Charles Clarke had discussed with the Prime Minister what he intended to say on Newsnight tonight, the PMOS said that Charles Clarke was his own man, and he was now a backbench MP. He was therefore free to say what he wished to say, as any other ex-Minister was free to do.
Asked if that was a "no" then, the PMOS said it was an explanation of Charles Clarke’s position.
Asked what was the position that was set out earlier this year; did the Prime Minister know before March about the foreign prisoners, the PMOS said that the journalist could google the answer as well as he could.
Asked if the PMOS knew, the PMOS said he did, and he did remember, but he had no intention of going back over a history lesson. Lobbies were about today, not yesterday.
Northern Ireland
Asked that in the spirit of looking forward, not back, what was happening with the Northern Ireland visit later in the week, the PMOS said that we had set up a Committee for Preparing for Government to try and meet the deadline of 24th November for restoration of devolution. The Prime Minister and the Taoseach would meet the parties on Thursday essentially to assess what had happened, and also to ensure that momentum continued towards the November deadline.
Asked if this was now a history lesson, the PMOS said: no. This constituted as looking forward to Thursday and to November. In Northern Ireland, history was a subject which took a lot longer than that to go over. The PMOS asked which starting point would people want? 1690 or 1160?
The journalist replied 1690, and the PMOS said that he would have to spend quite a bit of time explaining why he had started at 1690 and not 1160.
Human Rights Act
Asked what the Government’s position was on the Human Rights Act, and would it stay, etc, the PMOS replied that he wanted to take a step back of only 50 years, to say that we had been members of the European Convention on Human Rights for 50 years. The Human Rights Act incorporated that into our legislation. The reason why we were members of the European Convention was because it allowed us to comply with our international obligations, and therefore protected British citizens abroad. The Human Rights Act was therefore incorporated into British law, and stopped the process which used to be the case where people had to go to Strasbourg to appeal their cases. The PMOS said that there were problems around the interpretation of the Act, and the DCA were looking at that as part of the overall review which involved the DCA and the Home Office. Lord Goldsmith had made the position for the Government very clear on this yesterday.
Put that the Government had ruled out amending the Human Rights Act, and maybe judges were taking things too literally, the PMOS replied that what we were looking at was the operation of the Act to see what it was that needed to be done to sort out the problems that we had had in this country that other countries which similarly incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into their legislation did not have. We believed that it was primarily a matter of interpretation, but that was what was being looked at.
Asked if we had not ruled out amending the legislation, the PMOS said we should see first of all what the result of the review process was.
Put that the Prime Minister had explicitly put on the table the possibility of amending the Act several months ago, but in his speech on Friday, it was interpreted that it was not necessary to change the Act, the PMOS said again that we should wait for the review process. The important thing was to recognise what the Human Rights Act did. What it did was incorporate the ECHR into British legislation.
Asked if nothing could be ruled out, the PMOS said we should wait and see where the process ended up.
Football
Asked if the Prime Minister had any business in Germany on Saturday, the PMOS said not that he was aware of.
Asked if there was any suggestion that the German police might have over-reacted at the weekend to the hooligans, the PMOS replied that what was important and very welcome was the sensible way in which the German and British police on ground had been working together. They had curtailed what was very much a minority problem, as the majority of the British fans had gone and enjoyed themselves in the proper way.
Asked was it not the Prime Minister’s duty to support England by attending one of the games, the PMOS said that it was the Prime Minister’s duty to support the England team as he did, but to do so in a way that allowed the team to get on with their job.
delicious
digg
facebook
