Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: State of the Union, Adoption Law, Iraq Debate and Policy Inquiry
State of the Union
Asked for reaction to President Bush’s State of the Union address last night, and in particular if there was disappointment that there were no firm commitments on the environment, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) replied that it sounded like the journalist had been listening to a different speech. President Bush had announced a commitment to reducing gasoline usage in the United States by 20% by 2017 - this was a firm commitment. This obviously fitted with a situation where there was a momentum building, not just in the States but also worldwide, on energy and climate change. As the Prime Minister had said in the past, he believed that these were flip sides of the same coin.
It was interesting both that this topic was to be top of the agenda in Davos this weekend, and that Chancellor Merkel had said it would be the centrepiece of their G8 Presidency. What we were all working towards was the possibility of a stabilisation goal for a post Kyoto framework and that agreement on the broad elements of the framework would be in place by the G8 summit in June. There was a commitment in what President Bush had said and we now needed to work towards moving that on to a stabilisation goal by the G8.
Asked to explain the process of switching from petrol to maize based ethanol and how this would produce lower emissions, the PMOS replied that it was not for him to speak for the US administration. But in general terms, if there was a situation of switching to fuels that were less pollutant in terms of emissions, then that was a good thing. As we saw when we visited California, the States were the biggest investors in green technology, spending something like $30 billion. We had to get away from the caricatures and recognise that there was a momentum on this issue. Whether it was being pushed by the energy side or the climate change side, the result was the same - more clean, efficient technology and a switch away from pollutants and emissions.
Adoption Law
Asked if the Prime Minister welcomed the interventions of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York into the debate about gay adoption laws, the PMOS replied that there was not much more to add from what he had said earlier in the week. This was a genuinely difficult issue. It was an issue on which there were sensitivities on both sides, but at the core of it we had to remember the children. Not just those in care now, but also the children who are still receiving aftercare, and in the case of the Catholic agencies this was rather a high number. This was because the Catholic agencies had tended to concentrate on those children who were most difficult to place and therefore there was a process of aftercare as well. There were real practical considerations that had to be taken into account as well as the conflicting principles that were at the heart of the issue. The Prime Minister was leading the process of trying to find a way through those conflicting pressures.
Asked again whether the Prime Minister welcomed the interventions of the Archbishops, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister recognised that there were strong views on this issue on all sides and welcomed the fact that people were debating both the principles and the practicalities.
Put to him that he had gone further in his response by specifying the particular role that the Catholic agencies play, but that some of the Cabinet had let it be known that they were not too bothered about these agencies as they accounted for only a small percentage of adoption cases, the PMOS replied that he would not comment in any way on what Cabinet Ministers had or had not said privately or publicly. We needed to focus on the factual position and the factual impact on the children who were at the heart of this. It needed to be recognised that this was not just a debate about principle, but it was a debate about how to help very vulnerable children.
Asked if the Prime Minister thought that some people underestimated the contribution of Catholic adoption agencies, the PMOS replied that he would not be giving a running commentary. But we did need to focus on the real practical outcomes of policy. No matter what the decision was on the principle, we had to bear in mind the outcome in terms of policy on children as well.
Asked if the Prime Minster had been warned that Ministers might resign their jobs if he were to go ahead with this, and secondly asked about the story in the Independent regarding the Prime Minister’s wife’s views on this issue, the PMOS replied that this was a genuinely difficult subject. At the heart of the issue there were conflicting principals and reducing it to that level demeaned the seriousness of the subject. He added that he was not aware of any such threats from Ministers to resign over this issue.
Asked that when it came to giving respect to recognising the sensitivities of religious groups, did this encompass all and any religious group, or were some more equal then others, the PMOS replied that all the way through this discussion he had pointed to the sensitivities and concerns from all sides of this debate. These kinds of issues were better debated in practice rather than abstract. What we had to bear in mind in practice was that at the heart of the debate were decisions about the future of children and how best to help those children. Many of these were some of the most vulnerable children in our society. This was a real practical debate, not an abstract one.
Asked if there had to be parliamentary approval on any legislation, the PMOS replied that he was not sure, but we should reach the decision and then decide the process.
Asked if he could confirm that the Prime Minister was meeting a small number of backbench Labour MPs later today to discuss this issue, the PMOS replied that without providing a running commentary the Prime Minister was consulting people on this issue and was trying to find a practical way through.
Asked if the good work done by Catholic adoption agencies mentioned in a previous answer was surely not an argument for the practical improvement of the State’s provision, the PMOS replied that in this area, as in other areas, voluntary groups did play a very valuable role. They had also developed expertise in particular areas, talking wider than just the Catholic agencies. It was important that we supported that expertise. Uniform provision was not always the best answer.
Asked was this not a good argument for a transitional period so that this expertise could be brought into the State system, and did this mean that he was arguing that variety of provision should remain, the PMOS replied that he was not going to get into speculation about what a particular answer could be, even if the question had almost been delivered in a Gibbon like way, although not quite deserving of the full Gibbonesque approval rating.
Asked how long it would be before the Prime Minister would make a decision on this, the PMOS replied that the horse and the cart needed to be in the right order first. The Prime Minister was working hard on this and was focused on this issue. We needed to get to a point where at least the best available solution was identified before discussing timeframes, not the other way round.
Iraq Debate
Asked why the Prime Minister would not be leading today’s debate, given that this was the first Government debate on Iraq, and secondly would there be any indications on British troops, the PMOS replied that what the coverage of this had missed out, was that this Prime Minster had never led a foreign affairs debate before, furthermore he did not think that this had been the practice in the past either. What the Prime Minster had given was a commitment to the House to make a statement once Operation Sinbad had finished and had been assessed. That would be the important point of decision about what our profile should be. That was the point at which the Prime Minister believed he should come to the House and explain what his decisions were and what the next steps would be.
Asked if we were any closer to knowing the timing of the statement, and what did the Prime Minister think of the idea of a timetable that would mean that all troops could be out of Iraq by October, the PMOS replied that our approach to Iraq had always been based on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. An arbitrary timetable would simply say to those who were opposed to us in Iraq that here was a target to aim at in terms on raising their profile. Secondly the basic question had to be answered, were we there to help the Iraqi Government extend its authority? If we were then the judgement should be whether we had been successful in helping them do so, or whether more time or more effort was required. If the approach was condition based, then an arbitrary timetable would not fit in with that.
Asked if there were any indications as to when Operation Sinbad would be over, the PMOS replied that the aim was to finish Sinbad at some stage during February. What we were not going to do was put an arbitrary deadline on that as it was down to the Commanders on the ground.
Asked if he would acknowledge that we had to keep a substantial troop presence in the South until the Americans had left, as from a tactical point of view they would have to leave via the South and so we could hardly leave the South to the Iraqis until the Americans had withdrawn, the PMOS said that we would be taking things one step at a time and would not be jumping ahead.
Police Inquiry
Asked how distracting and debilitating it must be for the Government for more and more Ministers and officials to be questioned by the police, the PMOS replied that this fell into the category of him being invited to comment on a Police investigation which he was not going to do.
Asked whether the Police had questioned the Prime Minister, any other Minister, or any senior officials today, the PMOS replied that nothing had changed.
delicious
digg
facebook
