Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Iraq, Olympics, Control Orders, Immigration, Palestine and Other Business
Iraq
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) gave a readout of the Prime Minister’s meeting with the Iraqi vice-president. They had discussed the security situation in Iraq, including the new security plans for Baghdad and Basra, the Iraqis taking over responsibility in Al-Muthana as well as the new reconciliation initiative announced by the Iraqi Prime Minister on Sunday.
Olympics
The PMOS told journalists that the Prime Minister was meeting Ken Livingstone, Sebastian Coe, Paul Deighton - the chair and chief executive of the London Organising Committee, Jack Lemley and David Higgins - the chair and chief executive of London Delivery Authority along with Tessa Jowell. The Prime Minister believed that great progress had been made on the project since Singapore. For example over 90% of the land was under public ownership and the final site masterplan was published earlier this month, which fully integrated the Games and the legacy over 6 years out.
Control Orders
Asked for a reaction to the ruling in the High Court that control orders were illegal under the ECHR, the PMOS said that it was difficult because the judge had not yet published his judgment. All he would say was that, as people knew, Parliament had discussed at length both the principle and the implementation of control orders and we had always maintained that, if necessary, we would take it through the courts as far as we needed to. We should wait for the final judgement though. Asked if this meant that the Government would appeal, the PMOS said that he didn’t want to pre-empt the Home Office on matters which were primarily for them to respond to once they had the final judgement.
Asked if this would lead to a new determination by the Government to review the Human Rights Act, the PMOS said that we should first of all wait and see what this ruling actually amounted to. Secondly people already knew that there was a process underway looking at the issues around the Human Rights Act and the interpretation of it. The PMOS reminded journalists that the ECHR had been in place for 50 years and what the Human Rights Act did was simply translate that into British law. Asked if we couldn’t just derogate from ECHR on this issue, the PMOS said that it was too early even to start speculating on this issue. We should wait for the full judgment, respond to that and then look at the implications of that.
Asked if the Prime Minister thought it was acceptable that legislation which he had taken through Parliament could be struck down in this way by human rights legislation, the PMOS said that there were a number of assumptions built into that question. Without wishing to comment on this particular case, in the absence of a final judgment, what we had said in the past was that we would look at the issue of interpretation of the Human Rights Act because there appeared to be a problem in this country concerning the interpretation of the act which other countries in a similar position did not have. That was what we had said in the past and that position remained. That was already part of the review which was taking place in the Home Office and DCA as well. Asked when that review would take place, the PMOS said that in terms of the Home Office aspects of it, John Reid had said that he would put forward details of proposals before the summer break. In terms of the DCA it was more likely to be early autumn. This was an issue which the Prime Minister had been addressing for quite some time. What he had said, for instance around the time of the passage of control orders in Parliament was that he believed that we did need to be able to legislate to deal with these kinds of cases and that if necessary that should be tested through the courts. We would continue to believe that action in these kinds of cases was necessary and we would do all we could to make sure that action took place.
Immigration
Asked for a response to Frank Field’s remarks concerning immigration, the PMOS said that Frank Field spoke for himself and it was not for Downing Street to pronounce on the opinions of back-bench MPs. In terms of the issue of immigration itself he would simply point out that we had reached the tipping point in terms of there being more removals than failed applications for entry. We had seen progress on that, and the Home Office review would look at this issue and the detailed aspects of IND. We were fully aware of the issue and were acting on the issue of migration and had been for some time. At the same time we fully recognised the positive contribution that migrants made to this country and this country’s economy. The fact was that our economy would not grow as strongly as it did without migration.
Put to him by the Express that Frank Field had focussed on the failures in policy concerning immigration and a lack of public debate, the PMOS said that without getting into commenting on remarks by individual MPs he would simply point out that it was very difficult to say that there was not a public debate if you looked at the coverage of this issue down through the years, not least by the Express. Here was an issue which we had been completely open about in terms of arguing the case for immigration. At the same time we recognised that there needed to be controls. That was why we had introduced the points system for example.
Question further about immigration from EU countries, the PMOS said that we had to recognise the value of such migration to the economy of this country. There were 600,000 vacancies and there would be inflationary pressure if it weren’t for the contribution of migrants. Asked if we were putting economic growth before social cohesion, the PMOS said that social cohesion would be put in jeopardy if there were inflationary pressures in the economy as a result of the inability to have people doing certain jobs. What you had to do was take a holistic view of the economy as a whole and the needs of the economy as a whole. That was why we had introduced the points system which placed value on certain skills which were needed for the economy.
Palestine
Asked if the UK was taking a hands-off approach to the current situation in Palestine given that the Prime Minister hadn’t spoken to President Bush in 24 hours, the PMOS said that, as he had said this morning, first and foremost the soldier needed to be released. That was not a matter for the British or the US governments but for those holding the soldier. Secondly in terms of encouraging dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis we were continually involved in that in a variety of ways. The Prime Minister and President Bush did not need to speak on a daily basis to continue their efforts to make that happen. What we had to do was judge what was the most effective way to achieve the ends that we wanted. We wanted the release of the soldier and dialogue between the Israelis and the Palestinians. You had to judge whether that was most helped by commenting in public or working privately behind the scenes. Asked if we were working privately behind the scenes, the PMOS said that if he answered that question it would no longer be private or behind the scenes.
Other Business
Asked if John Prescott was value for money, the PMOS said if you looked at the number of cabinet committees that he chaired and if you looked at what the Prime Minister had said at the time of the last reshuffle, he had set out quite clearly why he believed John Prescott was an important member of the Government.
Asked if the Government’s new Equality and Human Rights Commission might get involved in the Wimbledon equal pay dispute, the PMOS said that when you have just set up a commission it was probably best to let it do its job.
Asked whether the UK would investigate the possibility that the US had been transporting prisoners through the UK, the PMOS said that we complied with international law and had sought assurances that the US complied with international law and those assurances had been given.
delicious
digg
facebook
