Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Home Office, Casinos, Cabinet and Iran
Home Office
Asked why the Home Secretary was effectively forced to make an oral statement, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) replied that there was no precedent, and we had not given an oral statement in the past for changes to DEFRA for example. The Home Secretary was perfectly content to go to the House and answer questions, and we had been planning a Written Ministerial Statement from the Prime Minister on this all along. There was no great drama about this.
Asked if the Chancellor signed off the decision, the PMOS replied that this was a matter that had been discussed with all Cabinet colleagues. Asked if the Chancellor attended Cabinet today, the PMOS replied that this matter was not discussed at Cabinet this morning, it had been discussed previously with Cabinet colleagues.
Asked the significance of May 8th, the PMOS replied that firstly it was May 9th, and secondly this was the time it would take to put these changes into effect.
Put that in the past when discussing problems in the Home Office such as prisons, people in the Government had said that the last thing they wanted to do was split the Home Office up, the PMOS replied that he did not want to pre-empt what John Reid would say in the House, but the key thing about these changes was that it allowed us to focus the efforts of the Home Office on countering terrorism in all aspects. It also allowed us to focus the new Ministry of Justice in terms of dealing with people once they entered the court system, right through to the end of any sentence handed out. Therefore it allowed us to streamline our counter terrorism effort at the same time as streamlining the justice system. This was a response to the nature of the terrorist threat, and also a response to our desire to make the justice system more effective and more efficient. Policy did evolve over time.
Asked if there would be any changes of personnel in this shake up and would Lord Falconer be Head of the Ministry of Justice, the PMOS replied that Lord Falconer would be Head of the new Ministry of Justice. It may mean there would be some changes at a non-Cabinet level, but these would be announced on May 9th.
Casinos
Asked if the Prime Minister was expecting to visit Manchester in more triumphant circumstances, the PMOS replied that he would take it the journalist was referring to casinos, and that the Government had won the vote in the Commons last night. Ministers would want to reflect on where we were, but as Tessa Jowell told Cabinet this morning, this policy was very much alive.
Asked to confirm that the policy would be put back now until after the May elections, the PMOS replied that there were issues surrounding purdah, but nobody should be in any doubt about the intention.
Asked if the Prime Minister was still confident that Tessa Jowell was the right Minister to do this, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister was.
Put that it could not be brought back in the same order, the PMOS replied that this was why Ministers would reflect on the vote and then decide how to proceed.
Asked to clarify that the whole package was still alive, including locations, the PMOS replied that the policy was very much alive, and nothing had changed. The Commons vote was in favour, and that was important.
Asked if everything was still on the table, the PMOS replied that he would not be getting into the detail, and it was better that DCMS reflect on the vote and then decide how to move further forward. Tessa Jowell had strongly underlined that the policy was still very much alive.
Asked if anybody expressed a view at Cabinet, the PMOS replied that he would not be getting into the detail of Cabinet discussions. Asked if it was a big discussion, the PMOS replied that it was not.
Cabinet
Asked what was discussed at Cabinet this morning, the PMOS replied that there was a good report back from Peter Hain on Northern Ireland, and a report from Margaret Beckett on Iran.
Iran
The PMOS informed Lobby the Foreign Secretary reported to Cabinet on Iran where she outlined the efforts that we had been making, both to set out the case factually, to keep our allies in Europe informed as reflected in Chancellor Merkel’s speech to the European Parliament yesterday, and now to discuss the matter further at the UN. Not only had the UN Secretary-General made his view clear on the matter, but we also understood he would be discussing the matter with the Iranian Foreign Minister today. We would also be discussing with our allies in the UN as well.
Asked if there was anything specific that we wanted our allies to do, in terms of making statements for example, the PMOS replied that it was important that Iran knew that it was isolated on this issue. And Iran was isolated on this issue. We had tried to adopt a factual position on this, and we had tried not to resort to rhetoric, but we had tried to resolve this issue. We welcomed the support of all other countries in trying to achieve that, and we believed further developments would underline that fact.
Asked what we expected from other countries in terms of practical developments, the PMOS replied that so far for instance the EU had practically supported us both in terms of its statement at the weekend and also in what Chancellor Merkel said yesterday. Let us see what happens now in the UN.
Asked if we were expecting any Security Council resolutions, the PMOS replied that it was better that events unfolded in New York, rather than him providing a commentary in advance.
Asked if any specific requests or specific measures had been discussed with our EU partners, the PMOS replied that at this stage we had been asking for them to underline their support for our position, which they had done.
Asked for the Prime Minister’s reaction to the TV pictures of the naval personnel last night, the PMOS replied that nobody should be put in that position. It was an impossible position to be put in and it was wrong. It was wrong in terms of the usual conventions that cover this kind of situation, and it was wrong just in terms of basic humanity.
Put that that Iranians had suggested that we should admit that we were in the wrong, and asked if there was any prospect of us doing that, the PMOS replied that yesterday everyone saw the factual analysis of the situation. That was supported by the fact that the Iranians themselves initially gave coordinates over the weekend which were in Iraqi waters. It was only when this was repeatedly pointed out to them that they then changed their coordinates to just inside Iranian waters. It was difficult to change the facts.
Put that the Iranian Foreign Minister had been quoted as saying that British officials could be given consular access to personnel, the PMOS replied that first off we should deal with the facts, and so far we had not been given access.
Asked what if it was just a question of us losing face to get these personnel released, the PMOS replied that the facts were the facts.
Put that the Prime Minister had talked the other a day about entering a different phase, and asked whether there was another phase, the PMOS replied that as the Prime Minister had said at PMQs, we had widened the net of arguing our case. First of all we got the support of the EU, and today we were discussing the issue at the UN. So we were going through different phases. But we wanted this resolved, we did not want a confrontation over this, and we want this resolved as quickly as possible. We were not seeking in any way to put Iran in a corner, we were simply saying asking them to release the personnel as they should not have been seized in the first place.
Asked what would happen if the different phases, the EU and the UN, got nowhere, the PMOS replied that people should take this step by step. It helped no one, least of all the personnel involved, to race ahead.
Put that the statement “we do not seek to push Iran into a corner” seemed to contradict with the earlier statement that we sought to isolate Iran, the PMOS replied that it was not us seeking to isolate Iran, it was Iran that had isolated itself by taking this action and refusing, despite the overwhelming view that it was wrong, to release the prisoners. Iran therefore had a choice. What we did not want to do was isolate Iran simply for the sake of isolating Iran. We did however want to point out that it was isolated in trying to defend these actions. Iran was isolated already, that was a statement of fact not a threat. No one was supporting Iran in arguing its case. The way to get out of that situation would be to release the prisoners.
Â
delicious
digg
facebook
