Downing Street Says » Sex Offenders/Education

Asked for any further details, Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said the best thing on the review would be to let it move forward to Thursday. The important thing would be that where it strayed in areas of previous administrations there would be the necessary consultations. In terms of the impact of Bichard he had been right in what he had said in the morning. Asked how far back the review was looking, the PMOS said it would be whatever was necessary, but again the best thing was not to provide a running commentary on the review but wait till Thursday when Ruth Kelly would set out the entire picture as she saw it.

Asked if No10 was happy that Ruth Kelly had not mislead Parliament bearing in mind David Willetts’ point of order, the PMOS said that was the picture, as he had made clear in the morning briefing, Thursday would explain why that was the case. Put to him that it was unusual to look back at past administration cases, the PMOS said it was not unusual, as this kind of case had not begun in 1997. It would be an artificial deadline to suggest as such. It went back decades. When you were dealing with what happened during previous administrations then you obviously consulted with the people who were there at the time. It was best that the review was allowed to go at its own pace and allowed to happen without a running commentary.

Asked if that meant that somebody at the department would be speaking to previous Secretaries of State, the PMOS said if it was relevant then that would happen, but those sorts of decision were best left to the department and the review. Asked whether previous Secretaries of State had a veto on the consultation, the PMOS said that he would not be drawn into commenting on the consultation as that was for the department to decide as and when was necessary.

Put to him that the year 2000 had seen a change in the way the lists were operated, the PMOS agreed that there were changes made round about that time, but the correct time and place to explain the process was Thursday. Asked if it was the case then that from 2000 on people were automatically barred for life if placed on the list, the PMOS said that he was not disagreeing with the assertion but he would not get drawn into a detailed discussion of it. Asked when list 99 was introduced, the PMOS said that list 99 was eighty years old and the sex offender’s list was introduced in 1997.

Asked in that case how there could be any parallel with cases prior to 1997, the PMOS said there had been sex offences before 1997 and there had also always been "grey area" cases where people were considered for one reason or another to be worthy of discretion. These powers had always, up until now, been applied with discretion. Somebody had to apply that discretion and for 80 years that had been the role of ministers. It was now about whether you applied a life ban automatically or discretionally. Asked if prior to 1997 the discretion had been about whether to put people on list 99, the PMOS said that the grey area had always been about the discretion to put people on list 99. The first case mentioned was precisely that, whether or not somebody should be on list 99.

Asked then what the grey area was if people were automatically barred from 2000, the PMOS said that there had always been this element of discretion in terms of whether or not people were put on list 99. This was the grey area being discussed. The discretion was whether people went on the list not if they were barred once on the list. The change since 2000 was that people were now automatically barred once put on the list.

2 Comments »

"the best thing on the review would be to let it move forward to Thursday"

No, once again I beg to differ. The best thing for the children of this country and the well-being of their parents, would be if the incompetent retards who supposedly run this country stop deliberately fucking it up and sort it out properly. Sadly, I know I ask far too much in asking that they merely do their jobs. Where is the anger in this country? These people are taking YOU for a ride and you let them walk all over you!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 17 Jan 2006 on 12:25 pm | Link
One of the things about stopping ministers taking decisions, and as far as im aware not been asked of them, is that its just so that next time something like this happens they can say ‘well it wasnt our fault, we didnt make the decision’ and then sack someone for it.

What would be nice of course, would be a Government that runs the country, not one that just reacts to every headline that appears in the sun – bugger all chance of that though
Comment by tony — 18 Jan 2006 on 10:18 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Sex Offenders/Education

2 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries