Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Peerages, Lords Reform and Economist
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) told journalists that Sir Hayden Phillips had been announced as the independent figure who would be liaising with the party on trying to come up with agreed proposals on a future of party funding. Sir Hayden Phillips was the Permanent Secretary of the DCA until 2004, and before that, he was the Permanent Secretary of DCMS from 1992 - 1998.
Peerages
Asked what the status of Chai Patel’s peerage was, the PMOS replied that as he had said throughout, we would announce them whenever we were ready to announce them. As the Prime Minister had said yesterday, he had always abided by the recommendations of the Lords Appointments Commission, and he took those recommendations very seriously.
Asked if the Lords Appointments Commission had the power to recommend that people should not be given a peerage, the PMOS said that the whole point of the Lords Appointment Commission was to make recommendations. Therefore, it was automatic that they had the power to say no as well as yes. It was for the Prime Minister, then, to either accept or reject what the Commission had said, but as the Prime Minister had said yesterday, he took their recommendations very seriously.
Asked if we expected the full list of lenders to be published next week, the PMOS said that was entirely a party matter and he could not comment on that. He referred people to what the Prime Minister had said yesterday.
Asked if the choice of Sir Hayden Phillips was agreed in consultation with the other political parties, the PMOS replied that the discussions went through the normal channels.
Asked if that therefore implied that all the political parties would co-operate, the PMOS said that he did not want to talk for parties. The Prime Minister had always said that he believed that it was better and more acceptable to the public if we progressed on this matter on the basis of consensus. People underestimated the difficulties and dilemmas that there were, and expressed concern if parties got money from individuals. Equally, there was no great enthusiasm in terms of state funding. If money was received from other sources, however, then the question had to be: should the state contribute more? Those were issues, and people knew what were the difficult questions that had to be addressed, and we believed that this was a way of trying to reach a consensus in a reasonably short period. Sir Hayden Phillips’ terms of reference under which he would do his business would be announced next week.
Put that in the past, the Prime Minister had not been keen on the idea of state funding, so had the events of the past week forced him to have a rethink, the PMOS replied that it was not a fair summary of the Prime Minister’s view. What the Prime Minister had set out in the past was precisely what the PMOS had set out which was that there were issues which had to be addressed. The funding of political parties was perfectly legitimate, and an essential part of any democracy.
The question was how could it be done? We knew, and this week underlined it, that people had concerns even if the matter was handled entirely properly, when money was seen to come from either particular individuals or organisations, be they trade unions or others. Equally, however, there was a question of whether people wanted to see more state funding. If there was a situation in which political parties had to be funded in some way, then the best way to move forward would be on the basis of consensus. That would be what Sir Hayden Phillips’ main objective might be. It was more likely that people would get that consensus if there was an independent figure who was trying to reach it, rather than any individual parties. All the individual parties would quite rightly have their own view.
Put that yesterday, the Prime Minister said that some of these issues could be dealt with very quickly, whilst the PMOS had said today that they could be dealt with "reasonably short period" which in Whitehall terms might be two years, the PMOS said that he was not going to get into limits or timetables.
Lords Reform
Put that Patricia Hewitt had said this morning that she had favoured a fully elected House of Lords, and did the Prime Minister agree with that view, the PMOS said that as people knew, there were different views within all parties, as well as between parties. Therefore, people should not be surprised that there was a discussion going on. The important thing was that that discussion did happen, and no doubt the Prime Minister would express his view at what he regarded as an appropriate time.
Asked that if there was a fully elected second chamber, what would happen to the current Life Peers, the PMOS said that the question was at least three or four steps down the line from where we were at the moment. We needed to see what Lord Falconer came up with in terms of what his view was on the way forward.
Put that the PMOS had said that there were differences within parties about certain subjects, but they were not always expressed publicly, therefore, had the Prime Minister lost control of certain members of the Cabinet, the PMOS replied that if people went back and looked at the cuttings on this, the House of Lords was one of those subjects on which people had always expressed their own views. Therefore, the premise of the question was wrong.
Put that the PMOS had said that the Prime Minister would express his view on Lords reform when he regarded it as the appropriate time, but as he had already expressed a view on Lords reform, did that mean the view was changing, the PMOS replied that again, the journalist was trying to pre-empt in precisely the fashion the PMOS had warned against. This was an evolving debate, so people should wait and see where it got to.
Asked if there was any timetable for looking at Lords reform separately, as the review of funding would not look at it, the PMOS said that the review of funding was entirely different. In terms of Lords reform, the Lord Chancellor was looking at this matter, and it was better to see what he came up with.
Asked when an announcement on the independent figure who would judge Ministerial conflicts of interest might be, and were there any other discussions about that happening before a decision was made with other parties or members of the Cabinet, the PMOS replied that it would be entirely a matter of finding the appropriate person who had the confidence of Ministers and the wider public. An announcement would be made whenever the appropriate person was found, but we were not going to rush it.
Economist
Asked if the Prime Minister read the Economist and did he value its advice, the PMOS replied that the Economist could do its own publicity, as the PMOS was not part of its PR department.
delicious
digg
facebook
