Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Missile defence, troops, Serious Fraud Office
Missile Defence
Asked if the Prime Minister had lobbied President Bush on locating a military base in the UK, the Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) said she could confirm that discussions with the US had taken place at varying levels but she would not get into specifics of those. The discussions on additional support for the missile defence system were at an early stage and no decisions have been taken as to whether any element of that system would be based in the UK or as to where. Asked if the Prime Minister had personally been involved in discussions, the PMS said contact had been at varying levels but she would not get into the specifics of who had spoken to who and when.
Asked if it was the Prime Minister’s policy that we would like to have the bases in the UK, the PMS said that those decisions were yet to be taken but it was our intention at this stage that whilst the US are in the decision making process, that the UK be considered as part of that. Asked if that was for competitive reasons or reasons that would mean we would be better protected, the PMS said that we welcomed the plans to place further missile defence assets in Europe, it was an important step towards providing missile defence for Europe. Asked if that meant we support the offer by the Poles and the Czechs to do so, the PMS said that we support the programme and its development but she added she would not comment on other countries.
Asked if the advantage for Britain would be Britain being included in the shield, the PMS said that that was jumping ahead, at this stage we’re in discussions in order that we are part of consideration.
Asked if the discussions included or took into account plans for Trident, the PMS said again that she would not get into the specifics of discussions. Asked to clarify if it was a competitive advantage for the UK to have bases or for another reason, the PMS said that it was considered an important step that the US plans to place further missile defence in Europe, but that she would not comment further on the UK’s particular involvement. The PMS reiterated the discussions were at a very early stage so she would not deal with the hypotheticals or ‘what if’ questions.
Asked to explain why we supported the programme’s development, the PMS repeated that we believed that that is an important step to providing missile defence coverage for Europe. Asked who the missiles were to defend the UK from, the PMS said that it was against the threat from those for which the US system is being developed - it would therefore be appropriate for the US to answer that question.
Asked if that meant it the Prime Minister thought it would be a good idea as the UK would be more protected as a result, the PMS said the Prime Minister thought it was a good idea that we are part of the considerations by the US.
Asked on how Parliament would be consulted on the issue, the PMS said that no decisions have been taken. She added that there are regular discussions with the US on this system, but that the discussions over any further developments are at a very early stage.
Asked if it was Sir Nigel Sheinwald who had been involved in the discussions, the PMS said again that she would not be drawn on the specifics those involved in discussions.
Asked if the UK’s involvement was at our or the US’s suggestion, the PMS said that it was something that we believe is important to be considered as part of. Asked if it was an "either or" matter of location, the PMS replied that that was taking the discussions too far.
Put to the PMS that surely we would know what that threat was, the PMS set out that it would not necessarily be wise to discuss in detail where or who the threat was from in the forum of that 11 o’clock parliamentary lobby. Asked why not, the PMS said she thought those reasons were fairly obvious.
Put to the PMS that if the discussions were at an early stage why was the PMS confirming discussions and had not done so previously, the PMS said that she was answering questions because they were being asked, repeatedly. Asked if No.10 had ever answered questions on this issue at previous lobbies, the PMS said she did not have a library of all previous lobby briefings to hand but the reason she was answering questions on this today was because they were being asked.
Asked how early the early stage discussions were, the PMS said that they were early stage discussions about a specific issue. Asked if this was the same issue as discussed in 2002, the PMS said that we were talking about specific US considerations to develop their system in Europe. Put that the 2002 discussions were about the software and were these discussions about location, the PMS said she was not familiar with the detail of the 2002 discussions, these current discussions were as set out.
Asked if those gathered could make the reasonable assumption that the British Government would not want to place missiles in this country that protected another country but did not protect the UK, the PMS said that it was an important step towards providing missile defence coverage for Europe, of which we are part.
Asked if there were any concerns about the technology as tests had been less than satisfactory, the PMS said that that was several steps ahead of where we were.
Asked if the investment indicated that Russia was a strategic worry and if the Prime Minister agreed with that analysis, the PMS indicated that all these questions were a step too far considering where discussions were.
Asked what kind of consultations could be expected with parliament and the public about the locations, the PMS said that discussions were at a very early stage. Put that it was a highly controversial issue and it would be appropriate to have those discussions with the public, the PMS said that the reporter was again getting too far ahead.
Asked if the Chancellor had been included in the discussions, the PMS said that there had been discussions at varying levels. Asked if Cabinet had been involved, the PMS said there had been discussions within Government. Asked if the Prime Minister had spoken President Bush, the PMS said she would not comment on the specifics.
Put to the PMS that the location of the missiles in the UK put the UK at a greater threat, the PMS said that all of this was taking things rather ahead of where things were.
Troops
Asked when the Prime Minister announced that troops were coming back from Iraq did the Prime Minister know that more troops were to be sent to Afghanistan, the PMS said as always troop numbers are kept under constant review, but these matters would be for the Defence Secretary to announce. Asked if there was a linkage between a withdrawal from one area and the increase in another, the PMS said if she were to answer that question that would be undermining what she had just said about it being for the Defence Secretary to comment on. Asked if the Defence Secretary was making a statement to the House on Monday, the PMS said that any announcement would be for the Defence Secretary, as would the timing of any statement. Put to the PMS that reporters can be told about announcements in advance, the PMS said that it was a matter for Parliament and the Defence Secretary and it was appropriate that they make any announcement.
Asked why it was that the Defence Secretary got to announce bad news for families of troops going in to Afghanistan, but for the Prime Minister to announce good news of troops coming out of Iraq, the PMS said it did not matter how many different ways reporters tried to get the her to answer the question of a statement she would not be drawn.
Undeterred, asked regardless of what the Defence Secretary may announce on Monday, when the Prime Minister was in Riga last year assurances were given by other NATO partners regarding troops numbers, is the Prime Minister satisfied with his other NATO partners that they are pulling there weight where troop numbers are concerned, the PMS said that the issue of troops from other countries was primarily a matter for NATO.
Put to her that the NATO commander was disappointed with troops numbers and if the Prime Minister shared the commander’s view, the PMS said she wasn’t going to comment on another’s views.
Put to the PMS that when the PMOS was asked earlier in the week about announcements by the Defence Secretary the PMOS had said that there were no announcements, why then could the PMS not comment about statements on Monday, the PMS said that the PMOS was asked specifically if the Defence Secretary was going to make a statement on Afghanistan in the next two days and that the PMOS had given a straight and factual answer to that question. Asked if that was a little pedantic, the PMS said no, that it was a factual answer to a question.
Asked if the Prime Minister was keen for more troops to come from other countries for Afghanistan why were we sending more troops instead of others, the PMS said that the reporter’s questions was yet another attempt to get the PMS to answer a question about troop deployment.
Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
Asked if the Prime Minister still had faith in the SFO, the PMS said that both the Attorney General’s office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs had rejected that day’s newspaper report and had said that what was being said was without truth or foundation. There is currently a review underway, but the purpose of the review, which has been commissioned jointly by Robert Wardle and the Attorney General, is to strengthen, not to disband the SFO.
delicious
digg
facebook
