Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Anna Lindh, Anglo-French Meeting, ISC Report, Hutton Inquiry and ID Cards.
Anna Lindh
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the Prime Minister had spoken in Cabinet today of his shock at the terrible news from Sweden this morning following the very sad death of the Swedish Foreign Minister, Anna Lindh. The Cabinet, collectively, would be sending its condolences to the Swedish Government and the Swedish people. The Prime Minister had said that he hoped, if possible, to speak to Prime Minister Persson later today, although obviously Mr Persson would be very busy in the light of what had happened.
Anglo-French Meeting
The PMOS said that the Prime Minister was meeting the French Prime Minister at Lancaster House today. They would be joined by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor, Andrew Smith, Jacqui Smith and their French counterparts. The format for the talks would be informal. There would be a series of plenary and bilateral meetings which would run until about 3.30pm. The primary focus of the meeting was domestic policy. Issues which were expected to be covered included pensions, employment, the creation of a business-friendly environment and issues relating to research into healthcare. There would be no joint press conference but there would be a ‘family photo’.
ISC Report
The PMOS said that he did not intend to say very much about the publication today of the ISC report, mainly because of the read-across to Lord Hutton’s inquiry to which we were obviously sensitive. He informed journalists that the Foreign Secretary was making a short statement in Downing Street about the report this morning. The Defence Secretary would be in the House this afternoon for a debate on defence, which had been scheduled before today. He would take the opportunity at the beginning of his Statement to say a few words about the report. Ministers would not be accepting interview bids for the reason he had already outlined.
In answer to questions, the PMOS briefed journalists on Mr Straw’s statement this morning. He had said,
"The report is published this morning. The Government is grateful to the Committee for their work, which, as ever, has been very detailed and thorough. The Committee comes to some important conclusions. The September dossier produced by the JIC was founded on the intelligence assessments then available. The September dossier was not sexed up by anyone either in Downing Street or elsewhere in Government. The JIC has not been subjected to political pressure. Its independence and impartiality have not been compromised in any way. The Government welcomes these findings, and with these overall conclusions, the Committee has a number of criticisms and spells out a number of lessons to be learned which the Government will take on board. It will respond in detail to these and the other conclusions in the normal way later in the year and after Lord Hutton has reported".
Asked who had removed the sentence, "The case I make is not that Saddam could launch a nuclear attack in London or another part of the UK. (He could not)", which had been included in the first draft of the Prime Minister’s foreword to the September dossier [see para 83, ISC Report], the PMOS repeated that he had no intention of getting into a detailed discussion about the report other than to point to the Prime Minister’s words to the House on 24 September 2002 when the dossier had been presented to Parliament and a briefing the Prime Minister had given on his way to see President Bush at Camp David earlier that month when he had addressed the issue pretty much head-on. Journalists could look for themselves at what he had said.
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that the ISC report exonerated Geoff Hoon, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister had said what he had said yesterday in full knowledge of what the report had concluded. He had full confidence in Geoff Hoon for the reasons he had set out. Mr Hoon had been a strong Secretary of State at an important moment for this country when we had gone into military conflict against Iraq - a conflict which had been very successful. He continued to do an effective job as Secretary of State with the difficult reconstruction and security issues which the Coalition was facing in Iraq at the current time, for example. Mr Hoon would say some words this afternoon in relation to some of the criticisms contained in the report. Asked why he had used the past tense in saying that Mr Hoon ‘had been a strong Secretary of State’ during the conflict and whether the fact that he was only continuing ‘to do an effective job’ was an indication that he was now considered weak, the PMOS pointed out that it was difficult to talk about the achievements of a Cabinet Minister which were in the past without using the past tense.
In answer to further questions about Mr Hoon, the PMOS said that newspaper speculation arising from yesterday’s leak had focussed on the fact that Mr Hoon had misled the Committee by ‘flatly denying’ - as the Evening Standard had put it - that there had been any dispute within the Defence Intelligence Service. That was not accurate. As paragraph 97 of the ISC report stated, "The Defence Secretary told us that ‘there had been a dispute’ in the context of the 45 minutes claim about whether it was better to say that the intelligence was ’showing’ or ‘indicating’". The criticism of the Committee focussed on the fact that "The Defence Secretary did not tell us that two members of the DIS had written with concerns". The ISC was of course entitled to make that criticism. We were content to abide by their verdict and accepted it. The basic allegation, however, as had been reported yesterday and then repeated overnight, was wrong. And there was clearly an important difference.
Asked if the ISC report had been superseded by the Hutton Inquiry given our intention to respond to the report in full only when the Inquiry had concluded, the PMOS said it was a recognition that there was an ongoing independent judicial inquiry looking into issues which were germane to the report. While in other circumstances he would have said much more about the report, he wasn’t able to in this case because we were sensitive to the fact that Lord Hutton’s inquiry was ongoing. The second stage was due to begin next week and we had to be alive to the read-across between the two. Asked about the timescale for the Government’s full response, the PMOS said that the Government had issued a detailed response to the FAC report on the same day of its publication in July. There had also been some fairly lengthy exchanges at the press briefings at that time. However, we had said that there would be a more considered response in slower time. The same was true of the ISC report. Given the thoroughness of the piece of work, the Government’s formal response was likely to be made in a matter of months rather than days. Ann Taylor and her Committee had held a lengthy press conference this morning during which they had answered in detail many questions from journalists about the report.
Questioned as to whether we continued to view the leak of the report yesterday as ’serious’, the PMOS said yes. Our position had not changed. Asked if the Prime Minister accepted that the leak had probably come from Downing Street or one of the few Ministries who had been given a copy of the report in the light of Ann Taylor’s comment today that she believed no member of her Committee was responsible, the PMOS said that he had no reason to doubt what Ms Taylor had said. The Government had not pointed the finger at anyone. All he would say in respect of the leak and the allegation that it had come from Downing Street was this: the effect of the leak had been to distort some of the recommendations, to distract from some of the other findings, to undermine a Cabinet Minister and to ‘get up’ another story about spin in an unhelpful way for the Government. You didn’t have to be an international Grand Master of Political Strategy to recognise that all this was not necessarily in Downing Street’s - nor the wider Government’s - interests. Asked who was responsible for the leak, the PMOS said he didn’t know.
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister continued to have full confidence in Geoff Hoon, despite paragraph 115 of the ISC which criticised him, the PMOS said that his answer had not changed from three minutes ago.
Hutton Inquiry
Asked which Downing Street members of staff - both past, present and outgoing - had been recalled to give evidence to the second stage of the Hutton Inquiry, the PMOS said that the situation remained as he had set out on Tuesday. Any correspondence between the Inquiry and individuals whom Lord Hutton might wish to see again would be confidential until such time as the Inquiry decided to make an announcement. Since this was Lord Hutton’s inquiry, it was entirely appropriate that he, and he alone, should decide when that should be.
ID Cards
Questioned about the Cabinet’s decision today to allow the DA Cabinet Committee to examine the issue of ID cards still further, the PMOS said that contrary to what was being implied, it was not a question of kicking anything into the long grass. It was a recognition that there were detailed, technical issues which had to be looked at. It went without saying that the Government took its responsibilities seriously in terms of the thoroughness with which it approached any work of this nature.
delicious
digg
facebook
