Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Iraq/Jack Straw, Iraq/ISG, Middle East, Euro/Referendum, Carole Caplin and Hutton Inquiry.
Iraq/Jack Straw
Asked to confirm reports that Jack Straw had been a ‘doubter’ in the run up to the military conflict and had been asked to agree a ‘loyalty statement’ once a decision had been made to go to war, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) pointed to the response given by Mr Straw’s spokesman who had said yesterday that the Foreign Secretary remained as convinced today as he had been when the decision had been taken that military action was thoroughly justified by Saddam Hussein’s defiance of the UN and that it had been the right thing to do. The spokesman had also underlined that the story in the Mail on Sunday did not reflect the Foreign Secretary’s view, as had been explained very well to media organisations yesterday. People shouldn’t be surprised if thought had been given in different parts of Government to any fallback options which might have followed a negative vote in the Commons. However, that was entirely different to having reservations about the policy, as the Mail on Sunday story appeared to suggest. Put to him that his defence of the Foreign Secretary was somewhat implausible because it was a statement of the obvious that losing the vote in the Commons would have meant not going to war, the PMOS said that as the Foreign Office had set out yesterday, Mr Straw continued to believe now - as he had then - that military action was justified. He reminded journalists that at the time of the vote in the Commons there had been a lot of uncertainty as to what the outcome might be. Consequently, it had been sensible to give thought in different parts of Government to what might happen if the vote was lost. He repeated that he thought people recognised that there was a difference between that and expressing reservations. Pressed to confirm that the Foreign Secretary had only talked about not going to war in the context of losing the vote in the Commons, the PMOS said that he was not going to get into a discussion about alleged leaked documents. He thought he couldn’t be any clearer than he had been about this matter. He had given the same explanation twice now.
Put to him that if the Mail on Sunday story was untrue he should ‘close down every scintilla of doubt’ otherwise the story would continue to run, the PMOS said that the Press Secretary at the Foreign Office, John Williams, had spoken to virtually every single media outlet yesterday to put the story into context. He was simply amplifying what Mr Williams had said. Put to him that there was a fundamental difference between the Mail on Sunday report suggesting that Mr Straw had wanted to pull back from going to war and the point that not going to war had been a fallback option in the event of a negative vote in the Commons, the PMOS said that he would agree entirely. It was what he had just said. Put to him that the difference meant that either it was big story or it wasn’t a story at all - in which case it was important to be absolutely clear about Jack Straw’s position, the PMOS said that he would agree again. He suggested journalists look carefully at what he had just said if they still didn’t understand the position.
Put to him that in his interview with the Sun several weeks ago, the Prime Minister had made it clear that there was no fallback option and that he would have resigned if the vote in the Commons had been lost, the PMOS said he did not think it difficult to square what the Prime Minister had said in his interview with the fact that thought was being given to different scenarios in different parts of Government. Some of those scenarios might have focussed on contingency planning, while other might have related to political judgement. That was not at all inconsistent.
Iraq/ISG
Asked when the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) was expected to publish their report, the PMOS said that it would be a matter for them. In the meantime, their work was continuing. When and if they had something to say publicly, they would say it.
Middle East
Asked the Prime Minister’s thoughts about the status of the roadmap in the light of recent events, the PMOS said the Prime Minister recognised that these were difficult times in the Middle East. However, he believed that people needed to remain focussed on what had been achieved, although of course that was not to under-estimate some of the difficulties in recent weeks. The roadmap set out the objectives which everyone wanted to see, namely a viable Palestinian state alongside an Israel secure in its own borders. Obviously there would be big challenges ahead, but we remained committed to doing whatever we could to help the process move forward.
Asked if the British Government had protested to the Israeli Government about the apparent adoption of a policy to assassinate Yasser Arafat, the PMOS said that our position regarding Mr Arafat had not changed since Friday. It was up to the Palestinian people to decide who should represent them. Put to him that the situation had shifted in the Middle East with the open admission by a senior member of the Israeli Government that the assassination of Mr Arafat was being actively considered, the PMOS said that our position on this issue was clear. It was important for everyone to exercise restraint and focus in on how to achieve the aims of the roadmap which everyone wanted to see. He repeated that it was up to the Palestinian people to decide who should represent them and we had expressed that view forcefully from the outset. Put to him that his reluctance to condemn outright Israel’s latest policy regarding Mr Arafat appeared to indicate the British Government’s tacit support for it, the PMOS said that he would disagree. We had made it absolutely clear consistently that it was up to the Palestinian people to decide which individuals should represent them. We believed that everybody should exercise restraint in terms of what was said and that people should focus on the question of how to achieve the two-state solution which everyone wanted to see. In our view, raising the rhetoric was not necessarily a helpful way to make political progress.
Euro/Referendum
Asked to set out the ‘tangible’ steps the Prime Minister would now be taking towards holding a referendum on the single currency following yesterday’s vote in Sweden, the PMOS said that the position remained that set out by the Chancellor in his Statement to the House in June. For example, measures were being taken in respect of the housing market.
In answer to further questions about the Swedish referendum, the PMOS said that it was a matter for the Swedish people. Obviously the British Government respected the decision which had been made. However, it did not affect our own policy on the single currency. We were clear - as we had been from the outset - that the Government would only recommend joining if the economic case was clear and unambiguous. As we had underlined consistently, it was the national economic interest which would guide this Government in whatever decision it took. Asked if the Prime Minister saw yesterday’s Swedish result as in some way taking the wind out of the sales of the British pro-Euro camp, the PMOS said that as the Chancellor himself had stated, the issue would be revisited at the next Budget. At that time, we would be able to consider the extent of the progress which had been made and determine whether on that basis a further assessment would be needed. Questioned further, the PMOS said that it was important to go back to first principles. We had been absolutely clear from the outset that this was an economic union and therefore the economics had to be right before entry. There was no point recommending membership if the economics were wrong. Equally, if the Government judged that the five tests had been met and that it was in Britain’s economic interests to join, it would be negligent of the Government not to put it to the people.
Asked if legislation to provide for a referendum would be included in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech as the Chancellor had appeared to indicated in his June Statement, the PMOS said that we never briefed on the Queen’s Speech in advance. The Chancellor’s Statement set out very clearly the fact that although the Government had not yet met the five tests, it would now be taking policy measures to move in that direction. That work was continuing with a view to looking at the issue again at the time of the Budget. Yes, the Swedish people had expressed their opinion yesterday. However, that had no effect on our own policy on the Euro. It remained unchanged.
Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with Peter Hain’s comments yesterday suggesting that foreign investors were turning their back on the UK because we were outside the Euro, the PMOS said that inward investment was clearly important, which was why the issue was included in the five economic tests. That said, the final judgement had to take into account all the tests as a whole. Pressed as to whether the Prime Minister agreed with Mr Hain’s view, the PMOS said the Prime Minister agreed that inward investment was obviously an important issue. That was why it was one of the five tests.
Asked what had happened to the Euro ‘roadshows’ which had been promised by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, Patricia Hewitt and others had all been out and about speaking about the single currency in their different capacities through speeches and interviews. Asked when the Prime Minister had last spoken about the Euro, the PMOS said that he had held a press conference with the Chancellor on the issue after the Chancellor’s announcement. Put to him that that was some time ago, the PMOS pointed out that it had only taken place in June, which was a month before the summer recess. We had only been back for two weeks. Asked if the Prime Minister was planning on making a speech on the single currency at any time, the PMOS said that there was nothing he could point to at this stage.
Asked if the Prime Minister considered as a setback the fact that the Chancellor had cut the number of people assessing the Euro from one hundred to ten, the PMOS said that that was completely news to him. Should there be another assessment in the future, no doubt it would be as rigorous as the first. He pointed out that the reduced numbers - if indeed it was true - might reflect the fact that an assessment had just been made and that one wasn’t ongoing at the moment.
Asked the Government’s assessment of the chances of winning a referendum on the single currency, the PMOS reminded journalists that it wasn’t our policy to answer hypothetical questions, particularly since there was no referendum campaign going on at the moment.
Carole Caplin
Questioned about the allegations which had been raised last week and at the weekend against Government and Downing Street officials regarding Carole Caplin, the PMOS said that as he had stated on Friday, we never commented on issues relating to security and Downing Street. In respect of all the stories which had appeared over the weekend, whom the Blairs might or might not see in a personal capacity was entirely a matter for them, not him. Consequently, he did not think it appropriate that he should speak about the matter. Put to him that there was a serious charge which had been levelled at the Government and Downing Street inasmuch as it had been claimed that there had been underhand attempts to discredit Ms Caplin by accessing personal information about her, the PMOS said that he had seen the stories in the papers but did not wish to comment on them. Questioned as to whether any steps were being taken to ascertain whether the views ascribed to a ‘close contact’ of Ms Caplin were those of Ms Caplin herself or Peter Foster, the PMOS said that he had spent probably all of three minutes dealing with this subject over the weekend. He didn’t plan to spend any longer than that today. Asked what he had been doing in those three minutes, the PMOS said that he had used the time to tell journalists who had phoned him about it that he had nothing to say about the issue. Asked if Downing Street had been in contact with Ms Caplin, the PMOS said he didn’t know.
Asked if the Government had taken any legal advice about what it would do if Ms Caplin decided to write a book about the Blairs, the PMOS said he didn’t know. He had no idea whether the reports that she was threatening to write such a book were accurate.
Hutton Inquiry
Asked for a reaction to the number of Government witnesses who had been recalled to give evidence to the second stage of the Hutton Inquiry, the PMOS said that he had nothing to add to what we had said about the Inquiry from the outset, namely that we would co-operate with it in full. The judgements in terms of whom Lord Hutton wished to see in the second stage were entirely a matter for him. The PMOS added that all those who had been asked to appear would of course do so and would continue to co-operate fully.
delicious
digg
facebook
