Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Euro/Queen’s Speech, Iraq and Audit Commission Chair.
Euro/Queen’s Speech
Asked repeatedly to clarify the Leader of House’s assertion that the Euro would form part of the Queen’s Speech, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) cautioned journalists against getting too excited by the Leader’s comments today. Put to him that Mr Cook had told journalists that they would be very ‘interested’ in what the Speech had to say about the Euro, the PMOS said he would hope that journalists would be interested in every aspect of the Queen’s Speech. As he understood it, the comments had been made over lunch with the Women’s Lobby - and he would venture to suggest that Women’s Lobby lunches and the Euro seemed to overlap a bit too often. Our position on the Euro had not changed. Nor would it have changed after the Queen’s Speech. Put to him that the Government’s position on the Euro did not need to have changed in order to set out legislation which would allow a referendum on the single currency to take place, the PMOS said that this was a hypothetical question, and was not one he would recognise. Asked to explain exactly what he meant by that reply, the PMOS said he would leave it to journalists to work out.
Asked if the Prime Minister was happy for the Leader of the House to pre-empt the Queen’s Speech, the PMOS replied that Mr Cook had said what he had said. We had been down this road before. The Government’s policy on the Euro remained the same as it was the last time the issue had been mentioned at a Women’s Lobby lunch. Asked if the repercussions would be the same as last time too, the PMOS said that it might be better if he didn’t answer the question in order to safeguard the future of these ubiquitous meals.
Questioned repeatedly as to whether there would be any ‘paving’ legislation relating to the Euro in the Queen’s Speech, the PMOS said that we never speculated on the content of the Queen’s Speech, as journalists knew well. Put to him that the Prime Minister himself had done exactly that during his news conference yesterday, the PMOS pointed out that the Prime Minister had not commented on the detail of the Queen’s Speech. Challenged that the Prime Minister had stated yesterday that the licencing laws would be changed and that legislation would be outlined in the Queen’s Speech to that effect, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had been answering a question which had been put to him. In doing so, he had set out the arguments in favour of changing the licencing laws. Asked why he wasn’t able to use the same ruse and say whether the Queen’s Speech would contain paving legislation on the Euro or not, the PMOS said that the simplest way to address this issue was to say that he did not think people would be any more excited about the Euro after the Queen’s Speech than they were before it.
Iraq
Asked for the Prime Minister’s reaction to Dr Rowan Williams’ remarks about Iraq today, the PMOS said the Prime Minister understood that some people had a number of concerns about the prospect of any action against Iraq. However, as Jack Straw had pointed out this morning, we were not at or near the point of any military action. Moreover, as the Prime Minister had said at his news conference in Sedgefield last month, he hated the prospect of war and hoped that Saddam Hussein would recognise and obey the outstanding UN Resolutions so that a military campaign could be avoided. Obviously the best way for that to happen was for Saddam to recognise that not only was the international community united in demanding that his weapons of mass destruction be destroyed, but also that he would face the consequences if they weren’t. Clearly it was a very difficult issue. But, as the Prime Minister had said in Sedgefield, it was one where he felt morally bound to ensure that the threat to international security did not increase.
Audit Commission Chair
Asked the Prime Minister’s view on nepotism in light of the appointment of Baroness Blackstone’s partner as the new Chairman of the Audit Commission, the PMOS said that the appointment had been made in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice, which stated that candidates must be appointed and assessed on merit and not treated more or less favourably because of any association. It would be completely wrong to discriminate against someone simply because of who their partner was.
delicious
digg
facebook
