Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Lobby and Middle East.
Lobby
Asked to explain the thinking behind the proposal to change the Lobby system, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that contrary to the way it had been reported on the BBC, this was not about scrapping the Lobby. It was about looking at our briefing arrangements, given the repeated suggestion from all sides that perhaps they did not serve either of us - and most importantly the public - as well as we would like. We were not proposing to take anything away. We were simply looking at opening up the morning briefings to others.Both he and his colleague would continue to brief. The idea was to get more Ministers to attend, as well as change and rotate the cast list so that other senior officials could give briefings too.
For example, post-September 11, it might have been appropriate for Sir David Manning to have briefed the media given he was the Prime Minister’s foreign policy adviser. The Prime Minister himself also wanted to hold press conferences on a more regular basis. The idea was that briefings given by officials would be off-camera, whereas Ministerial briefings would be on-camera. It was all about focussing more on elected politicians.
The proposals should be seen in step with the announcement made last Friday regarding the Prime Minister’s decision to attend a session of the Liaison Committee every six months. Since the Government had such a large majority, there was a special responsibility to look at different ways to refocus attention on Parliament and Ministers. We had always said it was a myth that the Government did not take Parliament seriously. On the contrary. We took it extremely seriously. These proposals should be seen as an illustration of that. It was clear there was an issue relating to voter apathy and disconnection. We believed that one of the ways to counter that problem was to make sure that the voices of those who were elected were heard more often rather than focus on the reported words of those speaking on their behalf.
Essentially that was all there was to it. We would still be doing a daily afternoon briefing. We were proposing the changes as a result of the large demands being made of us. For example, post-September 11 we had been doing two or three briefings a day for different sectors of the media, domestic and foreign. Consequently, we believed it made more sense to consolidate everything into one briefing in the morning.
Asked when the changes would come into effect and why it had been announced today, the PMOS said that we had yet to find new premises, which we acknowledged would take a bit of time to do. We wanted to continue to hold the briefings at the heart of SW1, but journalists would need a bigger room. Journalists were aware that this was an issue which we had been discussing for a while. It had emerged today because we had wanted to tell people what was going on so that they would have a fair understanding of what we were proposing. We hadn’t wanted it to come as surprise to the Lobby because the changes would obviously affect them. It looked as though the story was going to break, so we though it was better to hear it from us rather than the media.
Asked if we had given any thought to the possibility that a Minister giving a briefing on a specific topic could be asked about other subject matters as well, the PMOS said of course. They were Government Ministers. Asked whether this might cut across Parliament, the PMOS said the point was that there could be instances where, for example, Geoff Hoon had made a Statement to Parliament on the deployment of British troops, and might want to give an update on where we were later on.
Questioned as to whether the Lobby would be given a say as to which Minister should give a briefing, the PMOS said that journalists should not assume that they would be briefed by Ministers every single day of the week. It wasn’t going to work like that. Put to him repeatedly that journalists should be able to ask for a specific Minister depending on what story was running, the PMOS said he was not suggesting that all the details had already been worked out. They hadn’t. Journalists were very welcome to discuss how the new system could work. That said, we were keen for senior Cabinet members to brief the media directly so that they could answer the questions being put. As political journalists, they surely had to believe that this was a good thing.
Asked whether the ‘old’ Lobby system would be defunct once the changes were brought in, the PMOS said that we were looking to open up the briefings in the mornings so that the foreign press, for example, could attend. The Downing Street press office spent a large part of the day briefing on what had been said at Lobby afterwards because most foreign corespondents did not have access to it. The proposals had been put forward because we had reached the stage where we believed it would be beneficial to bring in officials and experts in policy areas who could help inform the journalists’ reporting in a way in which both the media and the public would find helpful. Likewise with Ministerial briefings. That had to be a good thing rather than a bad thing.
Put to him that we were running the risk of making the proposals seem like the latest extension of spin and news management rather than a legitimate attempt to be more open, the PMOS said in that case journalists should see this as our desire to be more open, because that was what it was. Despite the fact that the briefings were now on-the-record, there was still a feeling amongst parliamentarians and the public that the system was a ’secret garden’. If we could introduce measures to help it become even more open, then surely that would suit everybody.
Asked how often the Prime Minister would hold press conferences, the PMOS said that that had yet to be decided. He certainly wanted to do more. Questioned as to how we were intending to stop the new system becoming ‘unwieldy’ and going on and on without an opportunity for the Lobby to ask us questions, the PMOS reassured journalists that we were not going to have a situation where the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman would not be available to answer questions. He would be. The point was that Ministers giving direct briefings more often had to be a good thing.
Asked which other journalists would be invited to attend the morning briefings, the PMOS said that these were some of the issues which we would have to work through. We were not yet at the point where we were ready to change over to another system. The only reason we were talking about it now was because we wanted to make sure that the Lobby knew about our plans through us, and not through the media. Obviously, one of our main aims was to open up the system, although of course we recognised that there had to be some constraint, not least because of the size of the room.
Pressed further, the PMOS said that if a Minister was talking about a particular topic, such as crime and transport, it would make sense to invite specialist correspondents to attend. Asked whether the ’specialist’ invitation would be offered on an ad hoc basis, the PMOS said that that was something we would discuss. No doubt existing Lobby journalists would want to talk about it with their News Desks as well.
Put to him that we were laying ourselves open to the accusation that we were seeking to extend spin because the morning briefings would ‘undoubtedly’ be diluted - which would mean that the big stories of the day would lose their momentum by the time the foreign press or specialist media had finished asking their questions, the PMOS said that that was certainly an odd way of looking at our proposals. He underlined that we would still be subject to exactly the same scrutiny by the Lobby as before. All we were suggesting was that Ministers would give more briefings, the Prime Minister would hold more press conferences and that access to the Lobby system should be more open. We wanted the authentic voice of the politician to be heard more than the voice of the spokesmen.
Put to him that hearing the authentic voice of a politician was not necessarily a good thing because one way to avoid answering questions about an awkward subject was to have the Minister read out a very long statement so that there would only be time for one or two questions - which would most probably be posed by members of the foreign press who would ask about a totally unrelated matter, the PMOS said that we were looking at the possibility of having someone to chair the briefings, so that meant we would not have total control over who was called to ask questions. Moreover, both he and his colleague would continue to take the Lobbies every afternoon as they did now. In our view, what we were proposing should be seen as adding something rather than taking something away.
Asked if we were building on any precedent from another country, the PMOS said that this was a desire to be more open, which we believed should be welcomed. We didn’t want to go down the route of officials briefing on camera because to do so would undermine the focus we were putting on Ministers and Parliament. The spokesman would get more coverage than the Ministers. Put to him that Ministerial - and Prime Ministerial - spokesmen were employed precisely because Ministers did not have the time or did not wish to appear on camera so regularly, the PMOS said in that case our plan was surely a good thing as it would help correct that if true.
Asked why we had rushed out the announcement today instead of instigating a consultation process, the PMOS said we had recognised that the story was about to emerge and we had wanted to make sure that the Lobby as a whole was aware of the proposals before they were reported.
Asked if he was implying that Alastair Campbell had rushed out the announcement because he had wanted to ’stymie’ the Times’ story, the PMOS said no of course not. It was all about Downing Street’s relationship with the Lobby and our view that it was right to inform people of our thinking collectively. Put to him that the Lobby belonged to the Lobby and not Downing Street, which meant that it was up to the journalists to decide whether they wanted to admit ‘outsiders’ or not, and that to invite additional correspondents to attend would dilute the briefings and would not allow the existing members of the Lobby to continue to carry out their role in scrutinising and harrying the Executive, the PMOS said that this argument did not stack up.
Was it really being suggested that the Lobby preferred to harry the Prime Minister’s spokesman rather than a directly elected politician? Why shouldn’t more journalists hear what we had to say? This was complete nonsense. They could do both if they wanted, as they would have the opportunity. Put to him that we were going to get a bad press over the announcement because of the way we had handled it, the PMOS said that we believed the proposals were a positive thing. There were never easy ways to announce these things.
Questioned as to whether the Downing Street Press Office would listen to the concerns being expressed by the Lobby, the PMOS said of course. Asked if the proposals were already set in stone, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister was keen for changes to be made. He pointed out that the morning briefings were traditionally led by us. We believed it would help the Lobby, Downing Street and most importantly the public if we focussed more on elected politicians and Parliament.
Responding to a suggestion that the changes we were proposing were a tacit admission that we were failing to get our message across to the public adequately, the PMOS said that it was important to look at the nature of the exchange between the public and Government, as well as the role the media plays in that. We acknowledged that voter apathy and disconnection were issues which had to be addressed. In the Prime Minister’s view, therefore, we needed more of a focus on elected politicians and Parliament to act as an antidote. Surely that had to be a good thing which the journalists themselves should welcome.
Asked how the officials who would brief the Lobby in the future would want to be attributed, the PMOS said it would depend. If Sir Christopher Meyer was to give a briefing on issues relating to the US for example, then perhaps he should be referred to as ‘Sir Christopher Meyer, the British Ambassador to the US’. On the other hand, if an official had been giving a technical briefing on FMD epidemiology for instance, then perhaps it would not be appropriate to identify him/her. On balance, however, officials not being named was better than being named as a rule of thumb.
Middle East
Asked if the Government had a ‘fallback’ plan given the UN’s fact-finding mission to Jenin appeared to have been called off, the PMOS said that now that the issue seemed to have been resolved around Ramallah, it was important to try to re-establish a political process. No one was under any illusion about the difficulties of that. Nevertheless, we would continue to play our part, albeit in an under-stated way.
delicious
digg
facebook
