Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Science, Spain/Iraq/War on Terror, Defence Select Committee Report/Clare Short and Beverley Hughes/Immigration.
Science
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister would be meeting with the Council of Science and Technology (CST) this afternoon. The CST was the country’s top independent advisory body on science issues for the Government. Earlier this morning, the Chancellor, Charles Clarke and Lord Sainsbury had launched the Government’s consultation on a framework for investment in science and engineering. They had highlighted the importance of Government working together with business and research foundations to achieve the level of investment required. Representatives of the business community had attended the launch, including Astra Zeneca who had announced additional funding for new facilities at Alderley Park. The Chancellor had given a commitment to increase spending on science in real terms, faster than the rate of GDP growth in each year of the spending review period. The Chancellor had said, "A Britain equipped for the future will be a Britain that invests in science". Today showed the Prime Minister and the Chancellor showing their commitment to science.
Spain/Iraq/War on Terror
Asked if the Prime Minister had urged the Prime Minister-elect of Spain, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, not to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq, the PMOS said that as we had told journalists yesterday, we had no intention of briefing on the detail of the telephone call between the Prime Minister and Mr Zapatero. They had had a wide-ranging discussion and a warm and friendly conversation. Given the fact that Mr Zapatero’s view had formed part of his election manifesto, his words yesterday should have come as no surprise. However, it was important to look exactly, and fully, at what he had said, rather than base assumptions on partial reports. He had said, "If there is no change by virtue of which the UN takes charge of the situation and the occupiers give up the political leadership, the Spanish troops will come home, and the deadline for their presence there is 30 June". Obviously it wasn’t for us to analyse the statements given by the incoming Spanish Government. Any decisions were obviously for them. However, it should be pointed out that a plan was already in place to hand over power to a transitional government at the beginning of July. The new transitional Administrative Law, which had been signed last week, had clearly been an important step forward. Asked if he was indicating that there was a strong possibility that Spain might decide not to withdraw its troops from Iraq, the PMOS said he was simply making the point that Mr Zapatero’s statement obviously had some qualifications built into it. It was not for us to predict the decision-making processes of the Spanish Government. All he was pointing out was that Mr Zapatero had been highlighting the importance of the UN and also the importance of the ‘occupiers’ - the Coalition - in giving up political leadership. The timetable for the handover of power was the beginning of July. In the end, these were decisions for the Spanish Government to take and we would respect whatever judgements they made.
Asked if Mr Zapatero’s assertion that the Iraq war had been based on lies would damage Spain’s diplomatic relationship with the UK, the PMOS pointed out that, over the years, the Prime Minister had shown an ability to forge alliances across political boundaries. Obviously the UK and the incoming Spanish Government had a difference of view in relation to the Iraq conflict. Nevertheless, it was important to recognise that the new Spanish Administration hailed from the same political tradition as this Government and the Prime Minister was looking forward to developing a good and effective working relationship with them. In answer to further questions, the PMOS drew journalists’ attention to the fact that the first thing the Prime Minister-elect of Spain had done after winning the election had been to underline his Government’s resolve in tackling terror. As the Prime Minister had said consistently for many years, the only way we would defeat terrorism was through strength. Al Qaida was an organisation whose hatred for the West and whose belief in Muslim fundamentalism was absolute. They were not going to ignore us if we simply left them alone. The threat from terrorism had been real for some years. It had existed before the Iraq conflict and before September 11. It remained real today. We would be looking to work with our European partners and our other international allies to tackle this global menace. We had to confront it and defeat it.
Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned that Spain would ally itself more closely with France and Germany and that the UK would become more isolated, the PMOS pointed out that it wasn’t so long ago that people had been commenting on the fact that the Prime Minister had participated in a trilateral meeting with President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder. It was important for people to be realistic. There were obviously going to be some issues on which European leaders would disagree. Iraq was clearly an example. However, on Europe more generally, it was important to recognise that the UK was at the centre of important discussions about economic reform, for example. The fact that in the last two weeks the Prime Minister had met with President Chirac, Chancellor Schroeder, Prime Minister Berlsuconi, Prime Minister Balkenende and Prime Minister Rasmussen was an indication that he took his relationships in Europe seriously and that our alliances remained strong.
Asked the Prime Minister’s reaction to polls suggesting that more people thought the Iraq war was illegal than legal and that his personal satisfaction rating had fallen, the PMOS noted that the survey had also contained positive elements which equally could have been flagged up in the question. The view of the Iraqi people underlined what we had been saying for some time. We had never pretended that everything was perfect in Iraq. Far from it. Some appalling atrocities had been carried out by terrorists and remnants of Saddam’s regime. However, that should not obscure the quiet progress and transformation in the lives of ordinary Iraqi citizens who were facing the future with more confidence than ever before. The terrorists inside Iraq were clearly attempting to target that progress and confidence. That was precisely what the violence was about in Iraq at the moment. We could not - and would not - let them win. In relation to the surveys that had been carried out, people were obviously entitled to disagree with the Prime Minister’s judgement regarding the Iraq war. However, there had been a number of inquiries, all of which had, in one or another, addressed the issue of integrity. We hoped that people would look carefully at those findings.
Defence Select Committee Report/Clare Short
Asked if the Prime Minister accepted the Defence Select Committee’s conclusion in its report on Iraq that Clare Short had impeded the preparations for post-conflict Iraq through her stance on the war, the PMOS said that Ms Short had been a member of the Cabinet which had taken the decision to engage in military action to uphold UN Resolutions. The Department for International Development (DfID) had played an important role in terms of the reconstruction effort in Iraq. No one was pretending that the post-conflict situation was easy. In the first instance, it was widely accepted that some of the immediate difficulties had been born of the fact that military success had come more quickly than many had predicted. As the Prime Minister had said in the past, Ms Short had done a good job when she had been in Government. In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that we would study the report in detail, as Adam Ingram had said in interviews this morning. If there were any lessons to be learned, we would obviously take them on board. It was important for people to recognise that the immediate post-conflict situation had been difficult. We had always acknowledged that we hadn’t been able to get everything right. Equally everyone was working hard to provide for a more prosperous future for the Iraqi people and, most importantly, to ensure that Iraq was managed for the Iraqi people by the Iraqi people.
Beverley Hughes/Immigration
Asked if the Prime Minister had spoken to Beverley Hughes recently, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. Asked if he felt that she was in full control of her department, the PMOS said yes. He also believed, as we had said consistently, that she was doing a difficult job well. If he was being asked about today’s Daily Mail story, it was important to be clear what it had been referring to. It had not been about asylum or immigration per se. Rather, it had focussed on citizenship applications for people already living in the UK without immigration restrictions. As the Home Office had made clear both last night and this morning, they did not accept the suggestion that people had been ‘nodded through’ without any checks being made on them. Only one element of case consideration had been suspended. All the key checks, such as police criminal records checks, standard immigration checks and, where necessary, further security checks, had been carried out. It was also important to recognise that there had been an element of discretion regarding residency checks for some time.
Put to him that a backlog of 29,000 citizenship applications created suspicions about the problems with asylum, the PMOS said he was not going to pretend that these issues were easily dealt with. They were complex and challenging. As the Government had indicated, we were putting in place end-to-end reforms of the asylum system to ensure that we were able reduce the number of applicants and also speed up removals. We acknowledged that the appeals system for asylum applications was not one that commanded much confidence because people could appeal endlessly against individual elements of their asylum application, even if they had been turned down repeatedly. Cleary that was something we needed to address. Concerns had been raised in the Lords regarding the right for a judicial review. The Government had said that we would look at the issue again. However, there was no point in simply wishing the ends without putting in place the means. These were big challenges for the Government and we would continue to address all the issues. An investigation by the IND into what had happened at Sheffield was continuing. In respect of the situation in Liverpool, a risk assessment had shown that in 100% of the cases sampled, the decision had been the same without the additional check being made. He repeated that this ’story’ was not about asylum.
Put to him that Beverley Hughes had denied that she had had any knowledge of any secretive practices that had been taking place, the PMOS said that it had been decided not to highlight the discretionary element publicly so that new applicants would not mistakenly view it as a relaxation of standard requirements. Specific reduction measures to deal with backlogs were not unusual. There had always been an element of discretion in relation to passport checks. In order to uphold the integrity of the process, a risk assessment had been made for those who had not been subjected to passport checks to ensure that the result was the same - and indeed that had been the situation in 100% of the cases. In terms of the 9,000 cases that had been decided from the backlog, he would point out that just over 8,000 had been granted, 820 had been refused and 8 had been renounced. Pressed repeatedly as to whether Ms Hughes had told the full truth to the Commons when she had said she wasn’t aware of certain practices, the PMOS said that there were two completely different issues to consider here. In terms of the situation in Sheffield, it was important to be clear that a decision had been taken there without reference to senior management or ministers being aware. In the Liverpool case regarding citizenship, only one element of case consideration had been suspended - with the full knowledge of ministers and without any impact in terms of the overall result. Put to him that discretion was one thing for a handful of applications but not for several thousand, the PMOS said if it was the case that 29,000 people had been waved through without any checks, then that would be a valid criticism. The point he was making was that passport checks were only one element of the system. We would argue that they were not as important as character checks, hence the element of discretion. However, in order to ensure that the result would be the same, a risk assessment had been put in place by officials. In every single case where they had referred back to the passport checks, the result was the same. Put to him that the large numbers of sham marriages, bogus students and travelling businessmen was evidence that the problem was wider than the Government was admitting, the PMOS said that if it was being suggested that large numbers of people applying for UK residency were being waved through, that was simply not the case. If large numbers of people were being granted citizenship without any checks, that was not the case. It was important to focus on the facts of the story.
delicious
digg
facebook
