Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Immigration, Middle East, Peter Foster, Constitutional Reforms and Northern Ireland.
Immigration
Asked to explain why Steve Moxon, an employee at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), had been suspended when the Home Office Minister, Beverley Hughes, had said in a Statement to the House this afternoon that two e-mails from him, dated 12 January, had not reached her until last night due to a variety of inexplicable circumstances, the PMOS said he did not think it was appropriate for him, as the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman, to comment on what were clearly internal staffing issues at the IND. Pressed repeatedly as to why Mr Moxon had been suspended when he had apparently gone through all the appropriate procedures to highlight his concern that figures on immigration from Eastern Europe were being massaged, the PMOS repeated that internal staffing issues were a matter for the Home Office and IND. Beverley Hughes had acknowledged in her Statement this afternoon that there was no question of any instruction having been given by Ministers or senior managers. It was a decision which had been taken by staff in Sheffield. She had announced that there would be an investigation by a senior immigration official from outside the Managed Migration Directorate to find out what had happened. Asked repeatedly why it was that ‘whistleblowers’ always seemed to be the ones who suffered, the PMOS said that Mr Moxon had been suspended pending the investigation. His allegations had been taken seriously and there would now be a further investigation. This was obviously a Home Office issue and he thought journalists would find it more useful to direct their questions to the Department rather than to him. Asked what he thought the Home Office’s justification might have been in deciding to suspend Mr Moxon, the PMOS said that these were decisions which had been taken by Mr Moxon’s employer. It was appropriate that the procedures that were in place were worked through by those involved. He was not one of those people. In answer to further questions, the PMOS said he hoped that journalists understood he was not being deliberately unhelpful rather than declining to become involved in a personnel issue.
Middle East
Asked repeatedly if the Prime Minister had used his meeting with the Palestinian Prime Minister earlier today to try to persuade him to sit down with the Israeli Prime Minister to get the roadmap back on track, the PMOS said that everyone was doing what they could to try to move the process forward. The Prime Minister would also be seeing the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister later in the week. Everyone was aware of the need to reinvigorate the process. Pressed repeatedly as to whether the Prime Minister had asked the Palestinian Prime Minister if he would sit down and talk to the Israeli Prime Minister, the PMOS said that sometimes diplomacy could not be boiled down to one black and white issue. In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that just because there had been a series of meetings with key figures relating to the Middle East in the last few days, people should not assume that they heralded or previewed some grand announcement or plan. They were simply a reflection of the desire by all parties to do whatever they could to get things back on track. Everyone recognised the difficulties involved, as the weekend had once again demonstrated.
Peter Foster
Asked if he was aware of ‘even more lurid’ allegations published in an Australian newspaper for tomorrow’s consumption following a ‘fairly lurid set’ from Peter Foster over the weekend, the PMOS said that he had been asked about further allegations by Mr Foster this morning, to which he had replied that he didn’t intend to dignify them with a response.
Asked to explain why the Prime Minister had put down in the Register of Members’ Interests that he had joint ownership of the flats in Bristol when, at the time of the Peter Foster case, Downing Street had maintained that the flats belonged solely to Mrs Blair, the PMOS said he did not recollect that particular distinction at the time. He thought that one of the reasons why we had discussed the issue in the first place was because we had accepted that it had been germane to the Prime Minister.
Constitutional Reforms
Asked if, in the light of Peter Hain’s differing comments yesterday and today, the Government fully intended to invoke the Parliament Act to force the Constitutional Reform Bill through Parliament or whether it merely might do so, the PMOS said that the Government was committed to getting its legislation on the statute book for reasons that were well known. In our view, the amendment, as framed, amounted to a delaying tactic and a device to kick the proposals into the long grass. A vote was due to take place in the Lords this evening. We would have to await the result before deciding how to take things forward. Peter Hain had simply been underlining the Government’s determination yesterday to get the Bill through. Asked if Mr Hain had been told not to repeat the threat he had made yesterday, hence the toned down version today, the PMOS said that we were taking things one step at a time.
Northern Ireland
Asked about the Prime Minister’s meeting with Ian Paisley this morning, the PMOS said that it was part of the Prime Minister’s stocktake of progress on the Good Friday Agreement review that was currently taking place in Stormont. He pointed out that the Prime Minister had also met with David Trimble and would be seeing the SDLP and the Taoiseach later this week. It was a chance for him to engage with the parties while the review was taking place.
delicious
digg
facebook
