Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Royal Irish Regiment, Prime Minister Trip to Bratislava-Prague, Sir Alastair Graham, Child Poverty, Brazilian President and Bird Flu
Royal Irish Regiment
The PMOS told journalists that the Prime Minister had paid tribute to the courage, dedication and commitment shown by the members of the Home Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment. They had faced pressures which were unique, and this settlement package reflected that.
Prime Minister Trip to Bratislava-Prague
Asked why was the Prime Minister going to Bratislava, the PMOS replied that these were visits which were arranged during our talks on the EU Budget, and there were requests for us to visit. The Prime Minister was happy to do so. Clearly, as we had said at the time of the EU Budget, we did have considerable interest in common with the Accession Countries, and we would discuss it.
Sir Alastair Graham
Asked about the Prime Minister’s views towards the remarks of Sir Alastair Graham during his speech today on independent inquiries, the PMOS said that the key word was accountability. Whether there was someone who, in the end, made those decisions who was accountable to not only Parliament, but also to a wider electorate. That was why the Prime Minister believed that in the end, it was better that the Prime Minister who was constitutionally responsible for selecting and informing Ministers, decided if they had abided by the Ministerial Code. The other point was that those who advocated an independent figure seemed to suggest that in some way, there would be less controversy surrounding decisions taken by an independent figure.
As the PMOS had said both this week, and last week, anyone who looked at the experience surrounding the panel in London, for instance, would seem to suggest that this was not the case. Equally, if people looked at the experience of the Hutton Report, again, that would seem to suggest that it was the case. Indeed, some of the coverage yesterday surrounding Sir Philip Mawer, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards showed that even if there was an independent figure, that was no guarantee that decisions would be not criticised by sections of the media. In the end, the argument that in the Prime Minister’s view outweighed all was whether the person who took the ultimate decisions was accountable to Parliament, and to the electorate.
Asked further about the various roles taken, the PMOS said that it was the role of the Cabinet Secretary to establish facts. As the PMOS had said last week, it was not the role of the Cabinet Secretary to make decisions. Equally, the important things in departments was that Secretaries of State could get advice from their Permanent Secretaries, and that we believed was the right way to go. The PMOS said that however these matters were arranged, in the end, if there was a situation in which a Prime Minister in the end had to make decisions, then in the end, it was going to come down to a matter of judgement. People were going to agree or disagree with that judgment. The Prime Minister’s view was that given that was the way that it was, it was better that the person who made the ultimate decisions was someone who was accountable to Parliament, and to the electorate.
Asked by the Evening Standard if it could be conceded that it was a matter of truth that the person who was accountable to Parliament and was a Minister belonging to a governing Party, then the would always be of the same Party, the PMOS said someone was either accountable and they worked through the system of accountability or they did not. The PMOS took the case of the journalist’s own paper yesterday which attacked Sir Philip Mawer. Therefore independence in itself did not guarantee that somebody’s decisions would be accepted uncritically.
Put that Sir Philip was not criticised specifically, the PMOS asked what was the argument for having an independent figure? If the judgement of Solomon was being delivered now, given the current media atmosphere, the PMOS did not think it would get an uncritical judgement.
Put that there was nothing wrong in criticising decisions, but the point was that the Prime Minister had a vested interest in the outcome, the PMOS said that in the end, were people unlikely to accept the legitimacy of the process simply because an independent figure was there. Recent history had suggested that was not necessarily the case. Therefore, it did come back down to a matter of judgement and having to accept that in the end, this was a political judgement, therefore it was better that someone who was directly elected made that judgement.
Child Poverty
Asked if there had been any discussion in Cabinet about the child poverty figures that had been released today, the PMOS replied there had not been. As people knew, however, Ministers had been talking about them.
Asked what was the Prime Minister’s take on the figures, and did he think the target was still achievable by 2020, the PMOS said that the target remained. People did need to take into account that since 1997, we had lifted 2.4 million people out of relative poverty, including 800,000 children and 1 million pensioners. In the last year, 200,000 pensions, 100,000 children were helped. Compared to the situation in 1997, where the child poverty level was the worst in Europe, it had fallen faster in this country than in any other European country. We acknowledged that we had not quite reached the first target on child poverty, but we remained absolutely committed to the goal set back in 1999.
Brazilian President
Asked if the Prime Minister would bring up the issue of the de Menezes shooting at his meeting with President Lula today, the PMOS replied that given that this was a matter which was now being considered by the CPS, there was obviously a limit in what could be said about it in public or private.
Bird Flu
Asked whether for further information about the bird flu discussions at Cabinet, the PMOS replied that it was a résumé of what we already knew, and of the uncertainties which surrounded the issue. The discussion was an attempt to sketch out the contingency planning to deal with any eventualities. It was clearly a very uncertain issue.
Asked if the contingency plans were from the Cabinet Office, the PMOS said it was not only a matter for the Cabinet Office, but rather, a variety of departments were looking at the issue on a contingency basis.
Asked if there had been any discussion on whether this was the right time to bring birds inside, the PMOS said there had not been.
Asked what departments were concerned, the PMOS said a variety, as the end, this was an issue which had multiple implications.
Asked if it could be assumed that DEFRA was involved, the PMOS said that of course people assume that DEFRA was involved!
Put that it seemed Ministers "hadn’t got a clue" about what was going on since everything seemed so uncertain, the PMOS said the question got the prize for the most spun question of the month, the PMOS then asked the journalist if bird flu had been transmitted from human to human? Could the journalist tell the PMOS what the impact of cold weather could have on migration patterns? If the journalist could, then he was a better man than any of the leading scientists in this country.
Asked what was the effect of cold weather on migration patterns, the PMOS said that it was a universally known fact that the weather did have an impact on migration.
Put that there was a very uncertain picture in that it was not known whether it could be transmitted human-to-human, the PMOS said that the uncertain picture was precisely the uncertainty that we had always said was there. What we did not know was whether it would mutate into human-to-human, therefore, the nature of any possible virus was not known.
Asked if Margaret Beckett had given a presentation to Cabinet, the PMOS said that there had been a discussion.
Asked if bird flu was "inevitable", the PMOS replied that as David King had said, the chances were clearly increasing, but it was not inevitable.
Asked what the reason for having a presentation on bird flu was, the PMOS said it was so that lobby could chase its tail needlessly for ten minutes, and that was the only reason they decided to do it today!
Asked again what was the reason, the PMOS said that it was an issue that given where we were, we had to continually review. There was no reason why it was discussed today other than the need to make sure that because it was an issue that did go across many departments, it was important that we continued to look at it in a cross-departmental way.
Asked if there had been any decisions to update contingency plans, the PMOS said there had not been any.
Asked if it had been discussed how it would affect Ministers, the PMOS said: no.
Put that Ministers would be given the medication Tamiflu", the PMOS said he did not know.
Asked if all the Cabinet would be taken up to a country house in Scotland in the event of an epidemic, the PMOS asked for people not to mention Scotland, as there was a sensitive rugby match coming up this weekend!!
delicious
digg
facebook
