Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Lords Reform, Iraq, Middle East, PM/Chancellor and 2012 Olympic Games.
Lords Reform
Asked to explain how the Prime Minister’s opposition to a wholly-elected House of Lords tied in with the Government’s election pledge to introduce more democracy into Parliament, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that as a Civil Servant he was unable to comment on political issues. However, the Prime Minister’s words at PMQs today spoke for themselves. Following requests to set out his view, he had done so unambiguously by explaining why he personally believed that the Lords should remain a revising Chamber. Equally, he had emphasised that the matter would be put to a free vote. Asked to confirm that the Prime Minister wanted to see a wholly-appointed House of Lords, the PMOS repeated that the Prime Minister’s words spoke for themselves.
Put to him that the Prime Minister had voiced his support in the past, notably in Cardiff in 2001, for a partially elected House of Lords, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had always been of the view that any reform would need to ensure that the Lords remained a revising Chamber whose role was not in any way in conflict with that of the Commons. He had taken account of the debate in both Houses on this matter. While it was clear that some people wanted a wholly-elected Chamber and others wanted to see a wholly-appointed one, it was equally clear that there was no consensus on a ‘hybrid’. Asked if he would accept that the Prime Minister had changed his mind on the issue, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had clearly listened to the arguments and had expressed his own view as he had been asked to do. The issue would be put to a free vote, which meant that others would no doubt freely express their opinions too. Put to him that next week’s vote could result in a majority of MPs supporting a hybrid proposal, the PMOS said that there was no point in speculating what the outcome of the vote might be. We would have to wait and see. In the meantime, the Prime Minister had set out his personal view today following requests for him to do so. Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister would accept a majority vote in favour of a ‘hybrid’ Chamber, the PMOS reminded journalists that it wasn’t our policy to answer hypothetical questions. Asked if there were any other policy areas in which the Prime Minister’s personal views had caused confusion, the PMOS said that he would reject the premise of the question. There was no confusion on this issue. We had always said it would be put to a free vote.
Asked to explain why the Prime Minister had ruled out the idea of a ‘hybrid’ Chamber when it could play a revising role just as effectively as a wholly-appointed or wholly-elected Chamber, the PMOS said that there was a lack of agreement on the nature of the hybridity. Moreover, there was a question as to whether the views of those who had been appointed and those who had been elected would hold equal weight, or whether different standards would have to be applied. Questioned as to how the Prime Minister expected to ensure that the Second Chamber would be more widely representative of the regions if it was wholly-appointed, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had always made it clear that any Second Chamber should be fully representative of the country as a whole.
Asked who would appoint the Upper Chamber if the Prime Minister gave up his power of patronage, the PMOS said that the next stage in the process would be the debate and vote in the House. This would be followed by a discussion by the Joint Committee on Lords reform. It was important for people to take this issue one step at a time.
Iraq
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that Iraq aided and protected Al Qaida terrorists as President Bush had declared in his State of the Union Address last night, the PMOS said that as he had pointed out at this morning’s briefing, given the way the Iraqi Government operated, Al Qaida would not have been allowed to be in Iraq unless the authorities wanted them to be there. That was a simple statement of fact. Put to him that he said this morning that Iraq had ’sheltered’ members of Al Qaida and that this was qualitatively different, the PMOS cautioned journalists against putting too much emphasis on one word. He was making the point that Iraq was an authoritarian state which would not allow anyone to be in the country unless they wanted them to be there. Asked repeatedly for the Prime Minister’s view about links between Al Qaida and Iraq, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had told the Liaison Committee last week, there was intelligence evidence pointing to loose links between Al Qaida and various people in Iraq. We had been careful not to over-claim our degree of knowledge about those links. It was, nevertheless, interesting that the Iraqi Government - who had never been afraid to use its brutal power - had allowed members of Al Qaida to be there.
Asked if he was implying that there was evidence that Saddam’s regime had known that Al Qaida members were in Iraq but had wilfully ignored their existence, the PMOS said he was making the point that the Iraqi Government surely knew about them and had allowed them to be there. Asked how we could be so sure that the Iraqis knew they were there, the PMOS said that given the way the Iraqi Government operated, it would be highly unusual if they knew what their citizens were up to but not the whereabouts of Al Qaida. Put to him that if it had taken us so long to find out that Al Qaida was operating in Wood Green in London - and indeed it could even be argued that we were aiding and abetting them - then surely it stood to reason that Saddam might not know about the presence of Al Qaida operatives in Iraq, the PMOS pointed out that there was a difference between a democracy in which people abided by the law and Saddam’s regime.
Questioned as to whether we would publish further evidence to show that Iraq was sheltering Al Qaida, the PMOS said that Colin Powell had declared that he would publish intelligence information about links between the two next week. That was a matter for him. We had not said anything this morning that we hadn’t said before. People appeared to have picked up on his use of the word ’sheltered’, assuming that this was something new. It wasn’t. He had used the word in its correct context.
Asked why the FCO had stated categorically today that we had been pointing to the presence of Al Qaida in Iraq from the outset, when this morning was the first time that people had heard about it, the PMOS said that he did not recognise the analysis and added that he remembered a past briefing - in the very room in which he was currently sitting - in which he had talked about the links between Iraq and Al Qaida. Put to him that his statement this morning that Al Qaida was being ’sheltered’ by the Iraqi regime was certainly a first, the PMOS cautioned journalists against attempting to hang an entire thesis on one small word. The point he had been making was simple. Given the nature of the Iraqi regime, it was clear that people in areas controlled by the Iraqi Government were obviously allowed to be there. That was a statement of fact. No more, no less.
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister agreed with President Bush’s assessment that Iraq was aiding and abetting Al Qaida, the PMOS said that we had evidence that there were Al Qaida operatives in Iraq. As the Prime Minister had told the Liaison Committee last week, we also had information relating to loose links between Al Qaida and various people in Iraq. That said, this was a constantly evolving intelligence picture. Asked if perhaps the US Administration knew something that we didn’t, the PMOS said that we were working in close co-operation with our American allies, as you would expect.
Asked how relevant the loose nature of the link between Iraq and Al Qaida was to the argument as to whether we should launch a military campaign against Saddam, the PMOS said that the argument relating to military action was about whether Saddam was going to comply with the UN or not. After Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in the early 1990s, the world had decided that Saddam was not someone who could be safely left in the possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). After twelve years, the question was whether he had WMD. After Hans Blix’s carefully worded report to the UN Security Council on Monday, it was difficult for anyone to say the answer to that was no. Asked if he was implying that any Iraqi links with Al Qaida were irrelevant, the PMOS said that the links were obviously important given the real concern about a possible crossover between international terrorism and WMD. However, the question as to whether Saddam had WMD - which was the basis on which the UN had formulated its policy twelve years ago and had reformulated it in Resolution 1441 last year - was the basis on which any judgement relating to military action would be made.
Asked if he would agree that the ‘unsubstantiated scare stories’ about Iraq, Saddam Hussein, WMD and Al Qaida was simply a way to keep the pressure up on other UN members, the PMOS said that he would disagree in the strongest terms possible. Our message from the outset had been very simple. Either the UN was the way to deal with the issue of Iraq’s WMD, or it was not. For the past twelve years, Saddam had had the chance to comply with the UN. He hadn’t done so. For twelve years, he had been saying that the cheque was in the post. The world was now beginning to recognise that he had been stringing them along. Dr Blix’s report on Monday had raised very serious questions about his WMD capability, including VX nerve agent which was of a purer kind than he had admitted and might even have been weaponised. We wanted Saddam to answer the questions being put him. He was being one final opportunity to do so.
Middle East
Asked why the Prime Minister had ‘ducked’ a question put to him during PMQs as to whether the US should do more to help the Middle East peace process when Clare Short had said this afternoon that they should, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had not ‘ducked’ any question. As had been made clear, if we wanted to achieve the twin objectives of a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state, then we all had to put our shoulders to the wheel and push the agenda forward.
PM/Chancellor
Asked for a reaction to today’s Telegraph story concerning relations between the Prime Minister and Chancellor, the PMOS said that ever since the Government had come to office, people had been saying that the Blair/Brown relationship was doomed to fail, partly because of historical precedent. The press hadn’t had the satisfaction of seeing that happen and had clearly become frustrated. The reality was that the Prime Minister’s relationship with the Chancellor was vital and strong and remained so. The suggestion that the Chancellor had demanded that the Prime Minister move over was simply untrue.
2012 Olympic Games
Asked when an announcement about a possible London bid for the 2012 Olympic Games might be made, the PMOS said that there would be a substantive discussion on this issue in Cabinet tomorrow, where Tessa Jowell would guide colleagues through all the arguments. Some of the detail would be new to some Ministers and it therefore seemed only sensible to have a period in which they could reflect and mull over what they had heard. Cabinet would then discuss the matter further at their meeting next week. Asked if the Cabinet Committee had reached a view today, the PMOS said that the deliberations of the Committee would be available to Cabinet tomorrow.
delicious
digg
facebook
