tent>
LOBBY BRIEFING: 3.45PM WEDNESDAY 8 MAY 2002
STEPHEN BYERS/MARTIN SIXSMITH
Asked to justify the payment of £200,000 to a civil servant to cover up the mistakes of a Secretary of State when the maximum amount paid to a vaccine-damaged child was £100,000, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that employment negotiations between Martin Sixsmith and his Department had now ended. He said he had no idea how much money, if any, had been awarded to Mr Sixsmith because the negotiations had been confidential. Different figures had been touted in different papers. He had no idea whether any of them were correct. As he understood it, all the parties to the negotiations had said they would not comment.
Asked to explain how the DTLR’s assertion yesterday that Stephen Byers had misled the House would square with the Prime Minister’s view stated this afternoon that he had not, the PMOS said he did not think that the Department had suggested Mr Byers had misled the House.
As the Prime Minister had pointed out this afternoon, the statement could not be used to condemn Mr Byers when it had stated specifically that what he had said he had said in good faith. That was an important point. We had been round the houses on this issue yesterday afternoon and this morning. Mr Byers had come to the House on Tuesday 26 February to correct a false impression that might have been created by what he had said on the Dimbleby Programme on 24 February. It was clear from Sir Richard Mottram’s statement on Monday 25th that there had been a misunderstanding with Mr Sixsmith regarding the question of his resignation. That explained why Mr Byers had said what he had said on Friday 15 February.
Put to him that the ‘in good faith’ argument was knocked down by the fact that eleven days had elapsed between the time that Mr Byers had said what he had said on the 15th regarding Mr Sixsmith’s resignation and his Statement to the House on the 26th - during which time Mr Sixsmith had made it absolutely clear that he had not resigned, the PMOS pointed out that Mr Byers had underlined in his Statement to the House on the 26th that discussions had been continuing between the Department and Mr Sixsmith to bring this affair to an end. That too was a significant point which should not be overlooked.
Put to him that, as recorded in Hansard, Mr Byers had made clear several times on the 26th that Martin Sixsmith had resigned despite Sir Richard Mottram’s statement of the 25th and Martin Sixsmith’s contribution to the Sunday Times - and that Mr Byers had indeed misled the House, the PMOS said that it had been pretty clear at the time that Mr Sixsmith was leaving his job but that the precise terms of his departure had not yet been worked out.
As Mr Byers had underlined in the House, negotiations regarding that aspect had been continuing. It was evident from Sir Richard Mottram’s statement that a misunderstanding had arisen as a result of an incorrect understanding of discussions which had taken place between the Department and Mr Sixsmith on Friday the 15th.
Put to him that the misunderstanding had not been reflected in anything that the Secretary of State had said on the 26th, the PMOS pointed out that Mr Byers had actually referred to Sir Richard’s statement of the day before which was in the public domain, so it wasn’t exactly a secret. He had come to the House to explain why he had said that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign on Friday the 15th, based on a misunderstanding of conversations which had been held between his Permanent Secretary and Mr Sixsmith. He had said what he had said in good faith.
Put to him that nothing he said would alter the fact that Mr Byers had misled MPs, the PMOS said he would disagree. Mr Byers had not misled MPs. The circumstances had been made clear at the time. Sir Richard’s statement had explained why, in his view, Martin Sixsmith had agreed to resign but that things had changed at 5.30pm on that Friday when he had spoken again to Mr Sixsmith. This was information which had been put in the public domain on the 25th - and to which the Secretary of State had referred in his Statement to the House on the 26th.
Asked if the Prime Minister had been denying this afternoon that Stephen Byers had told the House that Mr Sixsmith had resigned, the PMOS repeated that it had been clear he was leaving but that the precise terms of his departure were still being worked out. What had been said by the Secretary of State at the time had been said in good faith. He had been round the course many times now.
Put to him that Mr Byers should address the Commons again as a matter of courtesy given he had misled the House, the PMOS said that he would dispute the suggestion that Mr Byers had misled the House. He hadn’t. Put to him that Mr Byers should set the record straight to the Commons directly, the PMOS said that we had gone through this at length this morning. Mr Byers had appeared before the House to clarify his comments on the Dimbleby Programme and explain why he had said what he had said on Friday the 15th regarding Mr Sixsmith’s resignation.
Put to him that while journalists would accept that Mr Byers had said what he had said in good faith, yesterday’s statement made it clear ‘unequivocally’ that he had been wrong, the PMOS emphasised that yesterday’s statement did not materially alter anything inasmuch as it did not take us any further forward from Monday 25 February and Tuesday the 26th.
Put to him that the Department’s statement yesterday had stated categorically that it had been wrong to suggest Mr Sixsmith had resigned, the PMOS said it was clear that he had disputed that he had resigned, but what had been said about his ‘agreement to resign’ had been said in good faith for reasons now well known.
In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that the sequence of events was pretty clear and had been well documented. The announcement made on Friday the 15th regarding Mr Sixsmith’s resignation had been made by the Secretary of State based on a conversation he had had with his Permanent Secretary. That, in turn, had been based on conversations which the Permanent Secretary had had with Martin Sixsmith - which, in hindsight, had evidently been based on a misunderstanding of different positions. Sir Richard Mottram had made that clear in his statement on Monday the 25th, the day after Mr Sixsmith had set out his own version of events in the Sunday Times. On Tuesday 26th, Stephen Byers had stood before the House to explain the comments he had made on Dimbleby and also why he had said what he said on Friday the 15th. For all the endless verbiage around this issue, the PMOS said he did not think that yesterday’s statement from the DTLR changed anything.
Asked why there was no sign of Mr Byers taking legal action against newspapers which had called him a liar given he had initiated legal proceedings against Tom Bower who had called him that in his book, the PMOS said that obviously different judgements were made in different circumstances. Asked if he was implying that the Government was content for a Cabinet Minister to be branded a liar, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had rebutted that charge on the floor of the House this afternoon.
MIDDLE EAST
Asked to clarify the Prime Minister’s comments this afternoon regarding the situation in the Middle East, the PMOS said the Prime Minister had been indicating that in the same way that we had helped to resolve a difficult situation in Ramallah and with the ‘Ze’evi Five’ by providing monitors, we, together with our US and EU partners, needed to look at how we could help to rebuild the security infrastructure within the Palestinian Authority.
Not only would this give the Israelis more confidence in their own security, but it would also reinforce the fact that the Palestinians could put forward fewer excuses for continuing the attacks. Moving a step - or even half a step - forward, as demonstrated by the resolution in Ramallah and the plans for a peace conference, was obviously significant. We also welcomed the fact that the US Administration was looking to send George Tenet into the region to address some of the issues. It was ultimately pointless if all that could be derailed by one suicide bomber. We had to look at how we could put in place some sort of support structure which could help to move things forward.
No doubt this was something the Prime Minister would want to discuss with European and American colleagues. In answer to questions, the PMOS said that we were not talking about sending in troops, but were looking at what help we could give to monitor the Palestinian Authority and support their infrastructure.
Questioned further about the Prime Minister’s comments, the PMOS said the Prime Minister had been signalling that we had to try to address what was clearly a fundamental problem. If the Palestinian Authority were condemning the attacks but were unable to deal with them because their security infrastructure was so weak, then that was clearly a cause for concern and was something which had to be addressed.
Asked whether the Prime Minister had expressed his views to other world leaders, the PMOS said that in many ways, his words this afternoon were an extension of what he had said when he had spoken about the Middle East during his visit to Texas. Asked if he was signalling a desire for an amplification of the monitoring operation to which the UK had contributed, the PMOS said the Prime Minister was making the point that it was easy to move one step forward and two steps back very quickly until the security void was addressed.
Clearly, that was something which had to be done urgently. He was not implying that there was a particular blueprint at this stage. He was simply indicating that the issue had to be discussed. As the atrocity overnight in Israel had illustrated, the situation in the region was very fragile - but it was that very fragility which meant that we had to look at how we could address some of the issues causing it. The security infrastructure within the PA was obviously one of those issues.
Asked whether the Prime Minister remained of the view that Mr Arafat was the only person who could speak on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had told the House today, the Palestinian Authority had condemned the attack last night. He had spelled out that it was difficult to make progress without any improvements to the security infrastructure. The PMOS suggested that journalists look at the precise words the Prime Minister had used this afternoon as they were far more eloquent than his own. Questioned further, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had articulated many times in the past, it was important to recognise the very real and awful situation faced by the Israeli people when confronted by acts like the one last night.
Asked if there were any question marks over the authenticity of documents discovered by the Israelis alleging that Mr Arafat was paying Palestinian terrorists, the PMOS said he hadn’t seen any papers on this issue. Nevertheless, it was clear that we had to look at ways to get a political process moving, because ultimately that was the only way to resolve the problems. Israel had to be recognised and secure in its own borders. Equally, there had to be a viable Palestinian state. This would only be resolved by dialogue. The sooner that could begin, the better. Of course that was not to underestimate the very real difficulties which had to be overcome before reaching that stage. The issue of security was clearly a major impediment, which was why the Prime Minister had been talking about it today.
Put to him that he appeared to have been implying that the Palestinian Authority was powerless to stop the acts of terrorism - and yet the documents found by the Israelis alleged that he was funding them, the PMOS said the Prime Minister had made the point that if there was a proper security infrastructure within the Palestinian Authority, it would be possible to verify the levels of complicity. Until we reached that stage, however, it was difficult to move further forward.
LINKS AND FURTHER INFORMATION
delicious
digg
facebook
