Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Working Ministerial Statement, Norman Kember, Government Contracts, European Council and Iran
Working Ministerial Statements
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) told journalists that the Prime Minister had tabled two written ministerial statements today. The first was about the appointment of Sir John Bourn as the independent adviser on ministers’ interests. As journalists no doubt recalled the Prime Minister had announced last week that he would appoint an independent figure. Sir John Bourn was the highly respected Comptroller and Auditor General and he would now advise ministers on ministerial interests and if necessary establish the facts for the Prime Minister. The second that we were publishing, also announced last week, was the details of how the honours system would work now that the Prime Minister would no longer nominate individuals for honours.
Asked about the remit of Sir John Bourn and whom he reported to, the PMOS said that it was a Prime Ministerial appointment. The role would be as described last week, which was to advise ministers and their permanent secretaries on how to handle issues surrounding ministerial interests, and if necessary establish the facts of a case for the Prime Minister. It remained the case that responsibility still lay with ministers to make sure they complied with the ministerial code. The first port of call for ministers would remain the permanent secretary, but Sir John Bourn’s role would be to help and advise both permanent secretaries and ministers. In the end it would still be for the Prime Minister to make decisions about ministerial compliance with the code.
Asked whether Sir John Bourn would respond to events and outside requests or just to the Prime Minister, the PMOS said that you could not have a situation where every single allegation resulted in an investigation - that would be absurd. There had to be a common sense acceptance of when an investigation was needed. Asked whether this was a full time job, the PMOS said it was part time and Sir John Bourn would continue to work at the National Audit Office.
Norman Kember
The PMOS told journalists that at the beginning of Cabinet the Prime Minster had expressed on behalf of the government his very deep appreciation and admiration for the outstanding professionalism, courage and commitment shown by all those, military and civilian, involved in this operation. The Foreign Secretary had also spoken about Mr Kember’s rescue on his way into Cabinet this morning. He had said that the rescue was the result of weeks and weeks of careful planning and British forces had played a prominent role in the multinational rescue operation. He could not go into details of the operation for reasons journalists would understand. Mr Kember was well and was presently at the British Embassy in Baghdad. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Mrs Kember this morning very shortly after learning of Mr Kember’s rescue.
Asked if he could add any more detail about the operation, the PMOS said he could not get into the detail because the best element that people involved in this kind of operation had was the element of surprise and, God forbid this ever happened again, we did not want to take away that option. Asked if there were any casualties, the PMOS said not that he was aware. Asked if Iraqi forces were involved, the PMOS said it was a multinational force operation and British forces had played a prominent role.
Asked what message this sent to insurgents, the PMOS said that it sent out a message both about our determination to do all we could to protect people and a message about the professionalism and commitment of our forces. Asked how this fitted into the suggestion of a civil war in Iraq, the PMOS said that both John Reid and Hilary Benn had been in Iraq recently and both had reported back to Cabinet on their visit. They had paid tribute to the work our military, international development and Foreign Office people were doing out there. John Reid had also said that everyone he had talked to, no matter which Iraqi community they were from or what position they held in or outside government believed that there was not a civil war. There had been a deliberate attempt to try and provoke sectarian tensions but there had been an equal determination to overcome that attempt, not least the efforts to form a unity government. You needed to listen to the voices on the ground. Mr Allawi, himself, had clarified his remarks saying he did not believe Iraq was yet at that point.
Asked if it was a long discussion at Cabinet, the PMOS said it was a brief discussion, which had begun with expressions of delight at Mr Kember’s release and then naturally flowed into the recent experiences of John Reid and Hilary Benn.
Government Contracts
Asked if the government was happy that Capita had not received preferential treatment, the PMOS said that contracts were dealt with in the usual way, which was by officials not ministers. Asked why then had Rod Aldridge resigned if he had not thought his loan would affect Capita contracts, the PMOS said that it was up to Mr Aldridge to explain why he had resigned. All companies were treated in the same way when applying for contracts, which was through a tendering process.
Put that this resignation added to the impression that something was not right, the PMOS said that one of the problems that this highlighted was that if people were going to end up with this degree of media scrutiny it acted as a deterrent to anyone who was thinking of donating to any political party. This was why we needed to have an objective assessment by Sir Hayden Philips of how we dealt with party funding. If you were going to have a democracy you needed to have parties that were funded in some way. However, recent events had clearly illustrated the problems that individuals faced if they came under this type of media scrutiny.
Asked if he was suggesting that the scrutiny was unwarranted or invalid, the PMOS said that there also had to be a recognition that it was perfectly legitimate for anyone to contribute to any political party they wanted. If the immediate assumption was that someone who had contributed to a political party had done something wrong, which had been the underlying assumption by some of the media coverage, that was not only wrong, it was also a deterrent to those who wanted to contribute. People needed to think very seriously about the impact that had on democracy. If journalists were seriously suggesting that somebody who donated to any party should be automatically be barred from competing for government contracts in the same way as everyone else, that would be a very strange world.
Asked what role ministers played in contracts, the PMOS explained that ministers formally signed off contracts but that they did not actually decide anything in the assessment process, this was done by officials. Asked what the Prime Minister would do to allay concerns of businesses bidding for contracts, the PMOS said that you had to ask the question should people who contributed to any political party be barred from bidding for government contracts. You only had to pose that question to know the answer.
Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with the Chancellor who had said that this had shaken public trust, the PMOS said that we had acted. We had, today, appointed Sir John Bourn. We had set out that the Prime Minister had relinquished his role in honours nominations. We had established the Sir Hayden Philips role to seek consensus amongst the parties on funding. So in terms of responding to the perception we had addressed this. There was no doubt that there were perception problems over party funding, however, what we had to do was not just point out that there were problems but find solutions. The problem with much of the recent coverage had been that people seemed to assume that there was a magic solution, which there was not. If you looked at the possible options of personal, business or trade union contributions versus state funding there were difficulties surrounding each. There was no easy solution. However, people did seem to jump to negative conclusions about individual donors, which was also a problem.
Put that there was a suggestion that if it had not been for Jack Dromey none of this would have come to light, the PMOS said that in terms of transparency this government had introduced transparency for donations, the Electoral Commission and the Appointments Commission. The Prime Minister had also said at his monthly press conference that he accepted that once you started down the road of transparency you had go the whole way.
European Council
Asked what the Prime Minister was expecting from the summit and how serious was the protectionism proposal being taken, the PMOS said we hoped to press forward with the Hampton Court agenda. For example on energy, which had only increased in significance since it was first identified at our summit at Hampton Court and the events in the Ukraine had further underlined that. There was also economic reform and R&D. In terms of protectionism in general this country had been at the forefront of arguing in favour of completing the single market and was for market liberalisation. We believed that was both in the interests of consumers and also in the interests of industry. Our experience suggested that it also created jobs. As such we were in favour of maximum openness and the performance of our economy suggested that worked.
Iran
Asked whether there had been a policy hardening towards Iran given the leaked FCO memo, the PMOS said that we had not changed our policy towards Iran. We had always been clear that we believed that Iran had to comply with international obligations of the UN, the IAEA and that remained the case. We would work with our partners at the UN to produce whatever maximised the pressure on Iran to comply. We did not give running commentaries on either leaked memos or proceedings at the UN. What mattered was the outcome and the outcome we wanted was maximum international pressure on Iran to comply with its obligations.
delicious
digg
facebook
