Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on:
Martin Sixsmith/Stephen Byers
Asked to explain how Stephen Byers had not misled the House in his Statement on Feb 26 given DTLR now accepted that Martin Sixsmith had never resigned, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that both DTLR and Mr Sixsmith had agreed that today’s statement from the Department should bring the matter to an end and that no further comment should be made. He drew journalists’ attention to that part of the statement which stated that there had been an incorrect understanding, in good faith, of earlier discussions that day.
Put to him that the Secretary of State appeared to have given misleading information to MPs, the PMOS underlined that he had not. Mr Byers had referred to the statement released on the previous day by his Permanent Secretary, Sir Richard Mottram, who had accepted that there had been different understandings of the discussions which had taken place. That view had been backed up by today’s statement from the Department which had pointed to an incorrect understanding, in good faith, of earlier discussions.
Challenged that that was not what Mr Byers’ statement on 26 February had said, the PMOS drew journalists’ attention to Sir Richard Mottram’s statement from the previous day in which he had described the meeting with Mr Sixsmith at 5.30pm that evening ‘….at which our understanding of Mr Sixsmith’s position turned out to be incorrect’. From 25 February onwards, it had been clear that the problem had arisen as a result of different understandings of discussions which had taken place.
Put to him that if that was so, it was surprising that Mr Byers had declared unambiguously in his statement of the 26ththat Mr Sixsmith had resigned, the PMOS said that Mr Byers had made his statement based on an understanding that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign. It turned out subsequently that that was based on an incorrect understanding of earlier discussions.
Asked why Mr Byers had not made a Statement to the House today to correct his error, the PMOS underlined the fact that Mr Byers had not misled the House. On 26 February, he had explained the basis on which he had, at the time, understood Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign, as set out in the Permanent Secretary’s statement the previous day. As a matter of law, there had been no enforceable agreement to resign. As everyone was aware, we had been seeking since 15 February to agree the precise terms for Mr Sixsmith’s departure. There was nothing new in today’s statement beyond what had been public knowledge on 25/26 February.
Put to him that there was nothing new - except Mr Sixsmith’s financial settlement which would cost taxpayers £200,000, the PMOS said that in the same way that he would not dream of getting into detail about confidential pay negotiations between journalists and their employers, he would not go into detail about the confidential negotiations between Mr Sixsmith and DTLR.
Asked why taxpayers should suffer simply because of a misunderstanding by Mr Byers, the PMOS repeated that Mr Byers had made his original statement on the basis of what had turned out to be an incorrect understanding of a conversation that had taken place. Both parties accepted that the misunderstanding had occurred ‘in good faith’.
Questioned about the financial settlement, the PMOS pointed out that the Department, like any employer, had decided that there came a time when it was in everybody’s interests to settle the matter and move on. Put to him that the size of the financial settlement was in the public interest, the PMOS said it was true that there might be public interest in this issue - but he would not go further. He suggested that it was no more legitimate in the case of Mr Sixsmith than it would be in the case of either journalists or he and his colleague.
Challenged that public money was being used, the PMOS said he remained adamant that the private settlement agreed by an individual and his employer was nobody else’s business, whether that employer was the Civil Service or anyone else. Questioned repeatedly as to whether Mr Sixsmith had resigned from the Civil Service as well as from the DTLR, the PMOS said that he had nothing further to add to what the Department had said in its statement today. Mr Sixsmith’s contract would come to an end by mutual agreement at the end of May 2002. Pressed as to whether Mr Sixsmith would remain an employee of the Government, the PMOS said that he would not remain an employee of DTLR who had employed him. His contract was with the Department.
Asked to explain how the misunderstanding had occurred, the PMOS said that it had come about as a result of an incorrect understanding of what had, or had not been agreed, concerning what Mr Sixsmith would do. He referred journalists again to Sir Richard Mottram’s statement of 26 February.
Pressed as to how the misunderstanding could have happened, the PMOS said that if we knew that, then clearly there would not have been an incorrect understanding. These things happened. It had obviously been a fraught and difficult occasion for all involved. It was not the first time, and no doubt it would not the last, that misunderstandings of this kind occurred in such discussions.
Put to him that it was odd it had taken so long for the Department to concede that there had been a misunderstanding, the PMOS said that an admission had not been made for the first time today. It had been spelled out in Sir Richard Mottram’s statement of the 25th.
Put to him that Mr Byers had told the House on the 26th that he hadn’t spoken to Mr Sixsmith since his resignation and that our assertion that he had not misled the House ‘beggared belief’, the PMOS said that Mr Byers had been talking about his perception of what he had been told. It seemed that the information he had been given was based on an incorrect understanding - by all sides acting in good faith - of earlier discussions.
Put to him that Mr Byers had had eleven days to sort out the misunderstanding which had been clearly signposted by Sixsmith himself in the Sunday Times report which had been published the previous Sunday, the PMOS repeated that Sir Richard Mottram’s statement set out clearly how the misunderstanding had occurred. Asked where Mr Byers was at the moment, the PMOS said he didn’t have a clue. Presumably he was at his Department.
Mrs Blair
Asked for a list of discussions which Mrs Blair had chaired, the PMOS read out a press notice we had put out on 5 January 1999 which had stated, "The Prime Minister and Mrs Blair will launch a debate on Britain in the new Millennium by hosting a series of lectures by leading figures to highlight some of the challenges we will face in the next century. The 1999 Millennium Lectures will cover education, work, leisure, wealth creation, science, arts and culture and what it means to British in the twenty first century".
On 27 January 1999, Professor Jonathan Gershuny had given a lecture on work and leisure. On 11 March 1999, Professor Susan Greenfield had given a lecture on science. On 26 May 1999, David Potter had lectured on wealth creation and the knowledge economy. On 15 July 1999, Sir Geoff Hampton had talked about education. On 13 October 1999, Derrick Anderson had given a lecture on art and culture. On 8 December 1999, Professor Linda Colley had delivered a lecture on Britishness. On 6 march 2000, Sue Page had given a talk on health. On 4 December 2000, Tessa Tennant had lectured on the environment. On 17 December 2001, K Y Amoako had given a talk on Africa. On 11 February 2002, Jeremy Acklam had talked about transport.
Asked whether Mrs Blair had acted as moderator for all the lectures that had been given, the PMOS said yes because the Prime Minister could not guarantee to be present for the entire time due to diary pressures.
Powderject
Asked for a reaction to reports of a further donation to the Labour Party by Paul Drayson, the PMOS said that it was not for him to comment on party matters. That said, as the Department of Health had stated at the time that this issue had first been raised, officials at the Department, including the Permanent Secretary, had checked that all the correct procedures had been followed.
Asked if that meant that the Permanent Secretary had known that the donation was being made as the contract was being negotiated, the PMOS said that the Permanent Secretary had gone through all the procedures and had decided that everything was done correctly. Asked when he had made the judgement, the PMOS referred journalists to the Department of Health for the detail.
Asked why no mention of the second donation had been made at the time when we had been rebutting the initial reports in the media concerning PowderJect and the awarding of contracts, the PMOS pointed out that it was a party matter. That said, it was obvious that these things were declared in the proper way to the Electoral Commission. Put to him that it was a matter for Downing Street rather than the Party given Jonathan Powell was engaged in soliciting donations, the PMOS underlined that Mr Powell was not engaged in soliciting donations in his present role.
Asked to clarify the procedures which the Department of Health would have checked were being followed, the PMOS said that they would of course have made sure that the contract had been awarded on the correct basis, as indeed it had. Questioned as to whether the contract would have been awarded ‘blindly’ i.e. without knowledge of any donations, or in the full knowledge that donations had been made, the PMOS said the important point was that no company had had an advantage or disadvantage because they were, or were not, donors. The Department had underlined that they had checked that all the proper procedures had been carried out. As he understood it, the Permanent Secretary had given an assurance that he was satisfied that that was the case.
Asked whether the Labour Party had supplied Departments with a list of donors as suggested they should by Charles Clarke recently, the PMOS said that as he understood it, the donation pre-dated Mr Clarke’s suggestion.
Adoption
Asked for the Prime Minister’s view on adoption of children by homosexual couples, the PMOS said the factual position at the moment was that unmarried people, whether gay or not, could adopt children as individuals but not as couples. Children’s charities had argued that this policy should be extended to unmarried couples because research had shown that more children would be adopted, allowing many to move from care homes to families. This was a change which was supported by groups such as the NSPCC, Barnados and others, although what they were arguing for was a more technical than substantive change. The Government had decided that there should be a free vote on this issue and would leave it up to each individual MP to make his or her own decision because we recognised that there were strong views on either side.
Questioned about the Prime Minister’s view, the PMOS pointed out that the amendments had only just been put down, but if course the Prime Minister would want to consider the matter carefully. He supported moves to try to achieve the goal that children’s charities and agencies wanted, namely to widen the net of those who wanted to adopt children.
Middle East
Asked why we had upset the Italian Government by not informing them of the deal it was ‘cooking up’ with the US in which some of the Palestinian militants currently holed up in the Church of Nativity would be exiled to Italy, the PMOS said he appreciated being asked loaded questions which were wrong in every single element. He pointed out that there were agreed roles within negotiations and it had not been our role to inform the Italian Government.
delicious
digg
facebook
