Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: ISC Report, Iraq Survey Group, Hutton Inquiry, Iraq/Troop Deployments, Middle East, Northern Ireland, TUC, Phillis Review, EU Constitution and September 11/War on Terror.
ISC Report
Asked if the Prime Minister had received the ISC report, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that this was something which would be up to the ISC to announce. Pressed as to whether the Prime Minister had received the report, the PMOS said not at this stage. Asked if the Government would respond formally in writing once the report had been received, the PMOS advised journalists to take things one step at a time. Our response would be whatever it would be on the day. Asked if the Prime Minister had looked over its contents, the PMOS said that he had no intention of giving a running commentary on the report’s state of play. It was better to do things properly and procedurally. It was up to the ISC to decide when to publish its report and it was best to allow them to do so in their own way. Asked to explain what he meant by saying that the Prime Minister had not yet received the report, the PMOS thanked journalists for inviting him along the particular route they were taking on this subject but he would gracefully decline to go any further. Asked if he was implying that the Prime Minister might have received it, the PMOS said that journalists were perfectly entitled to continue to ask the same questions over and over again, but they should be aware that they would simply receive the same reply each time.
Iraq Survey Group
Asked to confirm reports that the Iraq Survey Group’s (ISG) final report was expected this week, the PMOS said that he didn’t recognise the report. In the end, however, it was a matter for the ISG themselves to announce, not us.
Hutton Inquiry
Questioned as to when Downing Street would know which Ministers and officials would be recalled to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry, the PMOS said that that was entirely a matter for the Inquiry, not him.
Iraq/Troop Deployments
Asked if the Prime Minister had known about discussions concerning additional troop deployments to Iraq being announced today when he had answered a question on the issue in his press conference last Thursday, the PMOS said that if a review was set up within Government, it was generally sensible to wait for it to conclude. We had given a strong indication that we would not hang about once a conclusion had been reached. He added that it was much more important to focus on the substance, rather than the process, of the story. The substance of the story was that there were three different elements of how we wanted to make progress. First, politically. The Iraqi Governing Council was clearly up and running. Cabinet Ministers had been appointed and they were on the verge of taking control of the various Ministries. Second, the infrastructure. Many hospitals and schools were now operational, and universities were about to re-open. However, we still faced challenges regarding infrastructure. Third, security. It was important to see the Defence Secretary’s announcement today as part of a detailed targeted response to achieving each of those three objectives - with one clear objective in mind, namely to put the Iraqi people in charge of their own affairs. Although this was already the case in 90% of towns and cities, our aim was to do the same on a national level. It was precisely this which those who were attacking not only US and British troops, but also Iraqis and the UN, were trying to stop. The purpose of Mr Hoon’s announcement today, therefore, was to achieve the goal of returning power to the Iraqi people themselves.
Asked if the deployment of additional troops was an admission by the Defence Secretary that the security situation in Iraq had deteriorated, the PMOS said there was an acceptance that attacks had been launched by those who wanted to stop progress in Iraq and return to the days of dictatorship and mass killings. We were determined that such a thing would not happen. Today’s announcement was not a knee-jerk response to recent attacks. It was part of a strategic plan to achieve the goals which he had already set out.
Put to him that a former leader of the Desert Rats had said yesterday that it would take at least two years before British troops would begin returning home, and whether the Government now accepted that the deployment of troops to Iraq was an open-ended commitment, the PMOS reminded journalists that various people had made all sorts of predictions about the duration of the war, many of which had turned out to be wrong. In the same way, it would be unwise to engage in a guessing game about the peace. Rather, it was more important to focus on what it was we were trying to achieve, what resources were needed and ensuring that those resources were put in place. It was vital to keep in perspective the progress being made - as well as the problems which we acknowledged still remained. The important thing for the Government was to maintain the right balance between the two.
Asked if the Prime Minister shared President Bush’s view that Iraq was now the central front on the war on terror, the PMOS said the Prime Minister was absolutely clear that the terrorists who were terrorising the Iraqi people, as well as US and British forces and the UN, were doing so in an attempt to stop progress in its tracks. It was therefore important to focus on ways to prevent such a thing happening. Asked if the Prime Minister shared President Bush’s commitment to spend whatever was necessary to achieve the Coalition’s aims, the PMOS said that as the Defence Secretary’s Statement later today would make clear, we were committing the resources which we believed were necessary.
Middle East
Asked for a reaction to the nomination of Ahmed Qureia as the new Palestinian Prime Minister, the PMOS said that the selection was an internal matter for the Palestinians, which was something we had to respect. That said, it was important to recognise that the task which faced whoever held the post remained the same - namely to ensure that the Palestinians implemented their share of the roadmap. That meant changes within the Palestinian leadership and to Palestinian policy. In the same way, we looked to the Israelis to uphold their balance of the roadmap too.
Asked for a response to Mr Qureia’s call for European support for the Middle East peace process and the implementation of the roadmap, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister remained fully committed to the roadmap because he believed that it achieved the essential balance necessary to secure two vital things: first, a secure Israel which was not under attack from terrorism; second, the existence of a viable Palestinian state. Obviously this imposed responsibilities on the Israelis and Palestinians which both had to live up to. The hard realities facing both sides were not going to be any different just because of a change in personnel. Asked what the UK saw as its role in the process, the PMOS said that our role was to encourage the Israelis and Palestinians to meet the challenges facing them. We continued to engage in active dialogue with both sides.
Northern Ireland
Asked if he could point to any further progress on plans to get the institutions in Northern Ireland up and running again, the PMOS said that the focus at the start of this week was on the Northern Ireland Monitoring Commission. Questioned as to whether any meetings with the Taoiseach would be taking place, the PMOS advised journalists to ask him again later in the week.
TUC
Questioned as to why the Prime Minister was not addressing the TUC annual conference this year, the PMOS said that it was traditional for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to take it in turns to speak. This year, it was the Chancellor’s turn to address the conference and would be doing so tomorrow. The Prime Minister was due to attend a private dinner in Brighton tomorrow evening.
Asked if the Prime Minister shared Kevin Curran’s view that ‘whinging businessmen’ should ’shape up or ship out’ of the country, the PMOS said that in the Prime Minister’s view, we needed a competitive economy in which businesses and trade unions played their part. It was also important to implement a reform programme to improve our public services so that they delivered what people wanted from them - high quality and the provision of choice. This was precisely what the Prime Minister was currently focussing his attention on and was what he would endeavour to deliver through dialogue with the trade unions. However, that dialogue had to be about achieving the reforms which were necessary in our public services. Asked if the Prime Minister believed that Mr Curran’s statement had been helpful, the PMOS said that neither he nor the Prime Minister were paid to act as commentators on other people’s statements. The Prime Minister was paid to deliver reform in the public services, as well as create a competitive economy in this country. The PMOS said that he was paid to speak about this and other such issues on the Prime Minister’s behalf.
Phillis Review
Asked when an announcement would be made about the new Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office and his deputy, the PMOS said that following the publication of the review last week, we had said that normal personnel procedures would be applied. That remained the case. He did not think it would be helpful to predict any timescale at this point.
EU Constitution
Asked to explain the point of tomorrow’s White Paper on the draft EU Constitution, the PMOS said that we had set out our position at the time of the last EU Summit. The White Paper tomorrow would formalise it. Asked if it would set out the UK’s red lines, the PMOS said that it would outline the areas where we believed we needed to maintain our national position, namely tax, defence and foreign policy. Asked if social security was included in our red lines, the PMOS said that the details would be set out in the White Paper. Our position on social security remained as it was.
September 11/War on Terror
Asked for a reaction to Michael Meacher’s comments at the weekend alleging that the US and UK had deliberately ignored warning of a possible attack so that they would be able to gain control of valuable oil fields, the PMOS said that Mr Meacher was a backbench MP and he had no intention of commenting any further on his comments - of which he believed Mr Meacher now disputed the interpretation - other than to say that, as we had outlined at the weekend, it was a view which we completely rejected. In the light of September 11, Afghanistan and other attacks which had taken place around the world, such as those in Bali and Kenya, the reality of international terrorism was there for everyone to see all too graphically in the horrific aftermath of such outrages. The view expressed was therefore clearly not one which would be shared by many people who rationally thought about the reality of the security threat.
delicious
digg
facebook
