tent>
Press Briefing: 11am Tuesday 20 May 2003
Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: European Convention/Asylum, Public Service Reform, Reshuffle, Kim Howells, UEFA Cup Final, Euro and Glaxo.
European Convention/Asylum
Referring to stories in some of the papers today relating to the draft constitutional treaty and asylum, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) underlined that any decisions taken in the IGC would have no impact whatsoever on either our ability to control our borders or on the decision we took on the substance of asylum claims. We had made it clear in the Convention that we planned to retain our frontier controls on people arriving from other EU countries. We had no intention of giving up the protocol that we had secured at Amsterdam which had fixed that position. Equally, we had made it clear that we planned to retain the linked treaty arrangements under which the UK was able to decide whether or not to participate in EU measures on immigration and asylum. The Convention could well lead to more majority voting on asylum and immigration issues. However, we had made it clear that in the areas in which we chose to participate, majority voting could be in the national interest. For example, QMV would have sped up the introduction of the Eurodac finger-printing database by several months. Asylum was a European-wide problem and we had to accept - and indeed the Government actively wanted where possible - Europe-wide solutions. Responding to the Express story this morning, he pointed out that the paper had carried leaders only a few months ago saying that Europe must act together to tackle the asylum problem because asylum was a European issue. He went through a succession of their stories. That was precisely the point he was making today.
Asked by the Express to confirm whether or not the Government was surrendering its veto on border control issues, the PMOS repeated that we planned to retain our frontier controls and that we had absolutely no intention of giving up the protocol which we had secured at Amsterdam. Under the current arrangements which we intended to keep, we could chose whether to opt in or out of any asylum measures which were put forward. By extending QMV to some of these issues, we would be able to go further faster in terms of achieving European solutions in those areas where we believed it would be in the national interest. Obviously these were issues which were still up for discussion. But in the meantime, it was important to establish precisely what this was and was not about. Asked if he was saying that asylum and immigration remained a red line area, the PMOS said he was saying that there were a number of issues on which we were not prepared to accept change. That said, given we had, under previous negotiations, secured a position where we could opt in to asylum and immigration where we believed it was in our interest to do so, we would be pushing for QMV in those areas too. Pressed as to whether asylum was a red line, the PMOS said that we were approaching this matter in a positive spirit and in a spirit of co-operation. Yes, there were issues where we were not prepared to accept change. We believed that was well understood. Equally, we had to accept that as we moved to an enlarged EU comprising twenty five member states with all the benefits that would bring for our prosperity in terms of the Single Market and our security as Europe expanded eastwards, we had to make the institutional changes necessary to the EU to ensure that it could function effectively so that those benefits would be realised. In essence, that was what the European Convention was about and what the IGC would be about when it started later in the year.
Public Service Reform
Asked for a reaction to the comments made this morning by the CBI President, Sir John Egan, regarding public sector reform, the PMOS said that the Government did not accept Sir John’s analysis. There had been real changes in our public services since 1997. It was important to remember that in the first years of the last Parliament the Government had been putting in place the solid economic foundations which the country as a whole - including the CBI - was now enjoying: low inflation, low interest rates and record levels of employment. As a result of those tough decisions, we were now seeing extra money going into our public services which, tied to reform, would bring about further real improvements. That was not to say, however, that progress had not been made. As the Prime Minister himself had said, we were not pretending that everything was perfect, but nor should others pretend that everything was broke, because it wasn’t. The Government’s record over the last six years was strong. For example, our ten-year-olds had been ranked third in the world for literacy in an international study published in April; there had been a 27% fall in crime overall since 1997; police numbers were at record levels. Moreover, as the independent chair of the Commission for Health Improvement, Dame Deirdre Hinds, had said earlier this month, "the bottom line is that the NHS as a whole is getting better". Obviously we were not being complacent. Indeed, the Government recognised that improvements made to our public services would be perhaps the fundamental issue against which it would be judged at the end of its current period in office. Nevertheless, it was important for people to recognise that we were now getting the extra investment in and that money was being allied to reform.
Questioned further about the comments, the PMOS said that the Government valued its relationship with business and wanted to work with the sector to deliver the improvements to our public services which we all wanted to see. That was why there was such a strong partnership on issues such as PFI. In the end, however, the CBI was perfectly entitled to make its own points and express its views, just as we were entitled to respond to them.
Reshuffle
Asked if there was any explanation as to why John Denham’s post at the Home Office and Ian McCartney’s post at DWP had not yet been filled, the PMOS said that these issues would be addressed in due course at the time of the Prime Minister’s choosing. Questioned further, the PMOS pointed out that the Home Office had a very talented team who had taken on Mr Denham’s former responsibilities. That principle applied every bit as much to DWP. Questioned as to whether the fact that the Home Office vacancy had not been filled meant that John Denham’s position was being made redundant, the PMOS said it meant that the work he had been doing was currently being done by other Home Office Ministers, lead by the Home Secretary.
Put to him that the problems with the Criminal Justice Bill in terms of recent amendments showed that the Home Office was not doing as well as he might think, the PMOS said he would disagree with the premise of the question. The so-called ‘problems’ actually showed that the Government was listening. Questioned further, the PMOS drew journalists’ attention to the core Home Office agenda where we now had record numbers of police and overall crime was down. Yes, there were still big challenges in relation to the criminal justice issue, for example. But what the legislation was all about was giving the police and the courts the powers and tools to do their job effectively and undertaking a very fundamental reform of a system which had essentially been set in aspic for years. We were also tackling some of the lower level, but no less important, issues of anti-social behaviour. We were also making progress on asylum.
In answer to further questions, the PMOS repeated that when the Prime Minister decided that the time was appropriate, he would turn his mind to these issues. Questioned as to whether Mr Denham was someone who the Prime Minister would like to see back in Government, the PMOS said he would consider that to be a reshuffle question to which, as journalists knew well, he would not be providing answer. Asked whether any study had been done into how long a Government post had been left unfilled in the past, the PMOS said he had no idea, but how journalists chose to spend their time was a matter for them.
Kim Howells
Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with Kim Howells’s suggestion that Hollywood stars like Tom Cruise should be brave and visit Europe, the PMOS said the Prime Minister believed that Kim Howells was an excellent Minister who was travelling to the US today to bang the drum for British tourism. He added that he thought it was unfair to criticise Ministers for being programmed automatons on the one hand, while on the other take issue if they said things in a way which was perhaps a little more interesting than usual.
UEFA Cup Final
The PMOS said that the Prime Minister had sent a message to Celtic FC wishing them all the best in their game against Porto tomorrow. He was mentioning it because of calls we had had from some of the Scottish press. We had given the message to the club to disseminate as they saw fit. The onward distribution had not been ours.
Euro
Asked if further trilateral meetings between the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Cabinet Ministers were taking place today, the PMOS said yes. Asked which Ministers were due to come in, the PMOS said that we had absolutely no intention of providing a running commentary on the process. Asked if a preliminary assessment of the initial discussions would be circulated to Ministers prior to this week’s Cabinet, the PMOS said that the Cabinet was due to have a preliminary discussion on Thursday based on the not insubstantial documents they had had since the weekend. The Treasury’s assessment would be circulated during the following week. Asked whether the assessment had been written some weeks ago or whether it could change in the light of the discussions taking place, the PMOS said that we were on track for the assessment to be given to the Cabinet next week and for an announcement to be made to Parliament on 9 June following a collective decision by the Cabinet.
Glaxo
Asked the Prime Minister’s view of the revolt by Glaxo shareholders yesterday, the PMOS advised journalists that Patricia Hewitt had put out a statement today on this matter on behalf of the Government. Asked if ’shareholders’ might revolt over the Lord Chancellor’s pension arrangements, the PMOS said that the Lord Chancellor’s pension arrangements were set down in statute. Put to him that he could be a bit more expansive now that he was leaving and say what he really thought, the PMOS said he just had and reassured journalists he would be around for a little while yet.
delicious
digg
facebook
