Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Parliamentary Security, European Constitution, New Permanent Secretary and Tuition Fees.
Parliamentary Security
Asked where the line should be drawn between beefing up security in and around Parliament with screens and barriers and undermining the democratic process by restricting access to MPs, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that decisions about any such issues were not a Government matter. They were for the House authorities, in consultation with the police. It was important to recognise that the changing nature of the threat was a reality for all democracies. That meant that adjustments would have to be made from time to time. In saying that, he wasn’t confirming any speculation. Asked if it would be a victory for terrorism, the PMOS said that it was always necessary to strike a balance between prudent precaution and ensuring that people could continue to go about their day-to-day business. That was the reality of twenty first century democracy. We believed the public understood that.
European Constitution
Asked for a reaction to today’s FT story suggesting that the Government was going to give up its red line on law and order, the PMOS said that there was no change to the text as set out in the White Paper last September which stated, "We will insist that unanimity remain for treaty change and in other areas of vital interest, such as tax, social security, defence, key areas of criminal procedural law and the system of Own Resources". We would continue to insist that anything which was essential for our courts system could not be changed against our wishes. We would be looking for an outcome in terms of any changes in QMV which delivered higher standards for our citizens abroad without undermining our standards at home. The Irish Presidency had been in discussion with other European member states and was due to report to the European Council later this week as to how they saw the negotiations developing during the first half of this year. We were continuing to engage constructively. People were fully aware of our position. Asked if he was implying that there was no truth in the FT story whatsoever, the PMOS said he thought that setting out a consistent position in a White Paper and underlining eight months later that that position continued to hold true showed a uniformity of approach. He repeated that we would continue to insist that anything which was essential for our courts could not be changed against our wishes. As he understood it, the draft treaty stated that the adoption of minimum rules in the EU would not stop an individual country from maintaining or introducing a higher level of protection for the rights of individuals in criminal procedure.
Questioned as to whether the thinking behind some of our red lines was being re-examined, the PMOS said that the position remained as set out following the European Council last December - that the centre of gravity in respect of our red lines had been with us at Brussels. As far as we were concerned, progress had been made in our direction as a result of the discussions that had taken place. Equally, because the talks had broken down on the whole issue of vote weighting, the IGC had not concluded. The Prime Minister had acknowledged at the time that although we had made progress - which we would hope to ‘bank’ - an IGC required unanimity in every area. Clearly that had not been achieved. Until such time as it was, all issues remained open. That was a statement of fact that was very well known. But what we had said in the White Paper last September remained our position.
Asked if there was a rethink taking place following the Madrid bombings and whether it was that which lay behind the story in the FT today, the PMOS said that the Home Secretary had been clear about closer co-operation with our European partners at the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers’ meeting in Brussels last Friday. Sir John Stevens had also talked about the issue at the weekend. Closer co-operation on terrorism meant ensuring that, in dealing with a phenomenon that did not recognise national boundaries, we put in place effective practical measures. Everyone supported better co-ordination. However, it had to be better co-ordination with a practical outcome, rather than simply talking about it for its own sake. Pressed again as to whether the Madrid bombings lay behind the genesis of the FT story, the PMOS said that he wasn’t a media commentator. He was simply pointing out that the desire for closer co-operation on terrorism had been with us since before September 11. After the attacks, we had discussed the issue of European arrest warrants. He underlined that the White Paper was clear about justice and home affairs issues - we would insist on unanimity in key areas of criminal procedural law.
Asked if it remained the British Government’s position that we would veto any extension of QMV in our red line areas, the PMOS said our position was that we would hold firm to our red line areas. However, that did not mean that we were not able to engage constructively in the debate. Asked if ‘hold firm’ was a euphemism for ‘veto’, the PMOS said he appreciated why journalists wanted to get the word ‘veto’ into a story. Obviously it made the headlines more interesting. However, approaching the issue from that end was never the best way to conduct negotiations. Everyone was absolutely clear where we stood on these matters. There had been a lot of movement in our direction at the European Council last December. We would have to wait and see how things developed. If he was choosing not to use the word ‘veto’, he was doing so as it as his prerogative and a more sensible way to negotiate.
Asked if other law and order issues might be up for modification, even if our courts system was not, the PMOS said that there was a whole range of issues up for discussion at the IGC. Our position on unanimity remained as set out. It had not changed. Asked if he was indicating that no changes whatsoever were in the offing, the PMOS said that the position on the White Paper, as set out last September, had not changed. We would continue to hold true to it. Questioned as to why the Irish Government did not appear to believe that was the case, the PMOS said that he was not going to comment on every piece of news or reportage which inevitably blew in and out in the middle of a negotiation process. The formal IGC negotiations had yet to restart. The Irish Presidency would report to the European Council at the end of this week on the preliminary discussions they had had with other European countries.
New Permanent Secretary
Asked to confirm the appointment of the new Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary in the light of the FT story this morning, the PMOS said that an announcement would be made shortly. It would not be today.
Tuition Fees
Asked if the Prime Minister was confident about winning the vote on the Higher Education Bill next Wednesday, the PMOS said that the Government had set out its position in the Commons. We had won the vote on Second Reading in January. We believed that our package of higher education reforms was fair. We had listened carefully to the representations that had been made. We had taken on board concerns which had been expressed. As the Bill returned to the Commons, we would obviously continue to make our case and set out our arguments because we believed they were right. Pressed further, the PMOS said that we had won the vote in January and we would continue to work hard to maintain that position. There had been genuine dialogue about this issue. We believed that the Bill was the best way forward for students in the higher education sector. This was not a pick ‘n’ mix Bill. It stood as a whole. Variability was a key component. The arguments had won the day in January. We would continue to work hard to ensure that the position held firm when the Bill was before the Commons next week.
delicious
digg
facebook
