Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Lord Callaghan Bust, Afghanistan, Euro, Adoption, Northern Ireland, Select Committees, Asylum, Gibraltar and World Cup.
Lord Callaghan Bust
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister would be unveiling a bust of Lord Callaghan, sculpted by Ian Walters, at the Speaker’s Residence this evening. It had been commissioned by the House of Commons Works of Art Committee. Lord Callaghan would be attending the unveiling and would make a speech to mark the occasion, as would the Speaker, Tony Banks (who was Chair of the Committee) and the Prime Minister.
Afghanistan
Asked for a reaction to the suggestion that our troops were wasting their time blowing up caves containing weaponry which might belong to our Afghan allies, the PMOS said that we would refute the idea absolutely. This action should be seen in the overall context of the fight against international terrorism. The purpose of the current operation was to undermine Al Qaida’s ability to re-establish itself. That was why we were harrying them, keeping them on the move and making sure that they were unable to consolidate in the area concerned.
During the course of the operation, our Marines had discovered a significant amount of ammunition which had been abandoned in a cave. It had clearly belonged to Al Qaida. That weaponry could now no longer be used to kill coalition forces or civilians. The military operation was continuing. It was important not to look at its success solely in the context of the number of casualties - as some people wanted to do, but in the wider context of what we were doing in relation to Afghanistan and Al Qaida.
Questioned as to whether one of the caves which had been blown up should have been blown up, the PMOS said that the MoD was better placed to brief journalists on the logistics of the operation which was still ongoing. The important point was that our troops were taking part in it for a purpose. The Prime Minister believed it was important for us to be there.
Asked if he was refuting absolutely that the Marines had blown up a Northern Alliance weapons dump or whether he was refuting absolutely that they were wasting their time doing so, the PMOS said the latter. On the former, he would refer journalists to the MoD for the precise details of the military operation.
Euro
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that Parliament should be given a chance to scrutinise the five economic tests before a decision on a Euro referendum, the PMOS said that the position remained as set out. First Cabinet and then Parliament would have to approve, and then it would be put before the people in a referendum. That said, it was important not to get too far ahead of ourselves at this stage. The five economic tests first had to be met before we reached that point.
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister continued to believe that the Euro was the biggest single issue facing this country, the PMOS said that he believed it was a very important issue. Asked if that meant he no longer believed it was the biggest single issue, the PMOS said that we had never sought to ‘triage’ different issues. We were focussing on improving public services and running a successful economy for example, as they were both part of a whole.
Put to him that the Prime Minister had said in the past that the Euro was the biggest political issue facing this country, the PMOS said that everyone would acknowledge that it would be one of the biggest economic decisions that any Government could take. Questioned further, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had talked about the issue of the single currency in the second part of his Newsnight interview, which was due to be shown today. Journalists should use his words if they were interested in the Euro, not those of his spokesman.
Adoption
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister would be attending tomorrow’s vote on the Adoption Bill, the PMOS said he hadn’t checked his diary or asked him. As we had set out last week, it would be a free vote and it would therefore be up to individual MPs to make their own judgements on the amendment. The Prime Minister was approaching the whole issue of adoption from the standpoint that he was in favour of ensuring that more children could be adopted.
Put to him that we had said last week that we would indicate how the Prime Minister would be voting nearer the time, the PMOS said that we would. However, this was a story for tomorrow since that was when the vote would take place. That said, the Prime Minister’s approach was clear.
Select Committees
Asked for a reaction to last night’s defeat in the Commons of proposals to reform the selection procedure of Committee chairs, the PMOS said that it was a matter for the House. Asked if that meant that the Prime Minister had no view, the PMOS pointed out that the Prime Minister had given a very clear indication of the importance he attached to Select Committee procedures by agreeing to be the first Prime Minister to be questioned by the Liaison Committee.
However, the vote last night was a matter for the House, not for him. Asked if he was implying that the Government Whips had been acting in a ‘freelance manner’, the PMOS said that a vote had taken place in the Commons last night. It had been a free vote. Whipping was not a matter for him.
Northern Ireland
Asked if the Government had a view on the ‘mounting evidence’ that the IRA was involved in helping terrorist groups in Colombia, the PMOS said that a judicial process was currently underway in Colombia. We had expressed our concerns about some of the allegations that had been made.
The ceasefires continued to be kept under constant review. We were acting on the advice of the acting Chief Constable, Colin Cramphorn, who had judged that the IRA ceasefire was holding. As the Prime Minister had said during his recent visit to Northern Ireland, the region was moving from conflict to peace. In this transition period, there could be no acceptable level of targeting and terrorist activity - but we were in transition.
Put to him that there was evidence to show that the IRA was actively rearming and helping a number of terrorist movements around the world, the PMOS said that Ministers would act on the advice of the security authorities who had to take a judgement in the round as to whether the ceasefires were holding. The view of the acting Chief Constable was that they were.
Asked whether the Prime Minister would accept that a ceasefire remained intact if a senior member of the IRA had been shown to have broken the terms of his licence under the early release scheme, the PMOS said that the action that had been taken in the past against one particular prisoner who was in the news today showed that we meant what we said in terms of prisoners being released under licence.
Questioned further, the PMOS said that he was not going to get into a discussion about individual cases. The early release scheme applied to convicted prisoners who could be recalled if the terms of their licence were breached. As we had demonstrated, we meant what we said.
Asylum
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister had spoken to President Chirac in the last few days about the problem at Sangatte, the PMOS said they had not spoken since their conversation around ten days ago. We recognised that the problems at Sangatte were very real.
As we had said yesterday, there had been a particular difficulty at the Frethun freight terminal over the weekend inasmuch as the large number of police officers who were usually on duty there had been reassigned to other duties. That had meant that security at the freight terminal had not been at the level it should have been at. As he understood it, a full replacement squadron comprising fifty officers had arrived at Frethun yesterday morning. We also understood that the new French Interior Minister, Nicholas Sarkozy, had given explicit instructions for policing levels at Frethun to be maintained.
The SNCF had also said that they would be installing better security, including improved fencing and infrared surveillance equipment, in June. As the Home Secretary had made clear this morning, this was an issue which we would continue to take up with the French Government.
Obviously they were in the middle of an electoral process. Peter Hain had raised the matter with the French Ambassador last week and the FCO had raised it at a variety of different levels with the French administration yesterday. We acknowledged that this was a real cause for concern and that we needed to work collectively to do all we could to counter the problem.
Asked to respond to suggestions that yesterday’s announcement about three new asylum centre pilots was party political because the centres would be located in Conservative areas, whereas proposals for two other such centres - in Ellesmere Port and Grimsby - which were in Labour areas had been scrapped, the PMOS said he wasn’t well up on the political colour of the areas which had been chosen.
However, we had indicated yesterday that the three sites announced yesterday did not mark the end of the measures we were taking to deal with asylum and immigration in terms of centres. He pointed out that the dispersal system which we were still operating at the moment had been in place for many years. Under this system, asylum seekers had been housed all over the country - in a large number of different constituencies.
Asked if he would agree that the current dispersal system was a failure, the PMOS said that the system was continuing simply because we did not have enough of the new centres to cope with demand. No one was pretending that the problem of asylum was an easy one to deal with. Obviously it wasn’t. We would argue that a number of the measures we had put in place in the last Parliament had been effective, such as the fines on hauliers.
Yes, there had been problems with the dispersal system, which had been well documented. Both David Blunkett and Lord Rooker had talked about it many times. However, the reason why we had introduced the new measures in the Asylum Bill was because we wanted to have a well-managed and end-to-end system of induction, accommodation, reporting and removal.
In answer to further questions, the PMOS pointed out that asylum was a global problem. You only had to look at what had happened in Australia last year, for example, to understand that was very much the case. Applications for asylum in the UK in 2001 had been 11% lower than they had been in 2000, whilst at the same time applications had risen in other European countries, such as Austria, France and Germany. In a league of EU countries and on a pro-rata population basis, Britain was somewhere in the middle when it came to the number of asylum applications.
Put to him that applications to the UK were higher in 2001 than they had been in 1999, the PMOS said he was not pretending developed countries were not having to face up to important issues relating to migration, particularly economic migration. Obviously they were. But it was a global problem and there were no instant solutions.
Put to him that many asylum seekers were aiming specifically for Britain, the PMOS said he did not dispute the fact that Britain held an attraction for reasons such as language and our economic success.
Put to him that the UK was being targeted by asylum seekers because they knew that it was harder for them to be removed once they were here compared with other EU countries, the PMOS said he would accept that it was important to get the removal end of the equation right in order to give the whole system real integrity. That was why we were putting in place the measures for which we had legislated. We had already improved removals, but had to do more.
Asked if he would agree that France did not really have any intention to try to prevent asylum seekers crossing the channel by train, the PMOS said no. He pointed to the co-operation between us and Eurotunnel which clandestines initially had been targeting. As a result, the number of clandestines had fallen from 808 in July 2001 to 40 in November 2001. Obviously, we recognised that they were now targeting the freight terminal, hence the particular focus on Frethun.
Nevertheless, we acknowledged that we were unable to address the problem without the co-operation of the French. Clearly we were disappointed about what had happened last weekend. However, that problem had now been corrected and we would continue to engage with the French and underline the seriousness with which we viewed the issue.
Asked whether Britain would provide extra police officers to France to help the freight companies guard their perimeter fences, the PMOS said he was not aware of any plans to do so. Asked why not, the PMOS pointed out that French police officers were currently guarding the terminal.
Gibraltar
Asked if he would agree that talks on Gibraltar had ‘gone pear-shaped’ and when the next lot of meetings were taking place, the PMOS said we were still involved in a process. Jack Straw would be meeting Josep Pique today over lunch in Carlton Gardens. We were expecting that engagement to be followed by some sort of statement from the FCO.
Today’s meeting was the latest contact in many months of discussions which we had been having with the Spanish Government concerning Gibraltar. Prime Minister Aznar was due to meet the Prime Minister on Monday during his pre-Seville tour of EU Capitals and no doubt the issue would be raised then. He was also due to attend the EU-Latin America Summit in Madrid on Friday.
Obviously there would be further contact between the two Governments over the next couple of months. Our aim at the outset of the process and our aim today were the same and had not changed. We wanted to try to build a better, stable and more prosperous future for the people of Gibraltar. Clearly, the longer the talks continued, the better able we would be to ‘boil down’ to some of the more difficult issues.
Asked if it was right to say that the Spanish remained unhappy about formally surrendering their ultimate claim of sovereignty, the PMOS said we had made it pretty clear that we wanted the outcome of the talks to result in a permanent settlement. We would always view this issue from the standpoint of defending the interests of the UK and the people of Gibraltar.
Obviously the Government was not in the business of concluding an agreement which we believed was a bad agreement. Nevertheless, the talks were ongoing and we would have to see how they went. Put to him that the deadline for the talks was this summer, the PMOS said that we had always hoped they would conclude by then. However, that was not rigid. Talks were taking place today.
The Prime Minister would see Prime Minister Aznar on Monday and after that. We had reached a certain point in the process where we were now obviously a lot further forward than we had been at the start. Consequently we were having to address some of the more difficult issues. We would have to wait and see what happened.
Questioned further about the deadline, the PMOS said that it was not set in stone. We had wanted to try to inject some momentum into the process, which was why we had said we hoped the talks would conclude by the summer.
Put to him that the MoD had flagged up a separate concern regarding the military base on the Rock, the PMOS drew journalists’ attention to the red line Peter Hain had drawn in the House on 16 April concerning this issue when he had said, "We will retain full control over the military base on the Rock, which is of key strategic importance to us".
Questioned as to why the Prime Minister would be seeing Prime Minister Aznar twice in two days, the PMOS said that the purpose of the Summit in Madrid on Friday was to discuss EU-Latin America issues. The Prime Minister was not going to Madrid for the purpose of meeting the Spanish Prime Minister to discuss Gibraltar.
Put to him that two meetings in three days with Mr Aznar looked like a ‘flurry’ of activity on Gibraltar, the PMOS said he would disagree. He repeated that the Prime Minister was not going to Madrid on Friday for talks about Gibraltar. He would be attending an EU-Latin America Summit.
Put to him that Jack Straw’s meeting with Josep Pique today seemed to have been arranged at short notice since the Foreign Secretary was supposed to be attending a NATO Foreign Ministers’ Conference in Reykjavik, the PMOS said that was not the case. As he understood it, the engagement had been in the diary for a while.
World Cup
Asked which Ministers would be attending the World Cup, the PMOS said Richard Caborn. Questioned as to whether he would attend the event for its duration or as long as England remained contenders, the PMOS pointed out that there were only three England games at this stage for obvious reasons, although of course we all hoped there would be more.
Responding to a suggesting that the Prime Minister should fly out to Japan if England reached the final - and that he should take a small pool of journalists with him, the PMOS said that we would have to wait and see whether such a happy occasion came to pass.
delicious
digg
facebook
