Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Deputy Prime Minister, Natwest 3 and Afghanistan
Deputy Prime Minister
Asked if he could shed any light on the Deputy Prime Minister’s day, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the Deputy Prime Minster’s office had issued a statement and he had nothing to add to that. Put to him that people close to the Deputy Prime Minster had said he was close to walking away, the PMOS said that it was not for him to give a running commentary on what people said on Sky News, if he did that he would be here all day, mainly correcting the numerous inaccuracies. The Deputy Prime Minster had a job to and he would get on with that. The Prime Minister believed that the Deputy Prime Minster’s years of experience in Government were hugely valuable in resolving issues which were cross-departmental. Therefore he brought a lot to the important role of chairing Cabinet Committees.
Asked if the Prime Minister had spoken to the Deputy Prime Minster today, the PMOS said that he would stick to his usual convention of not commenting on discussions between the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues. He would say however that he was not aware of any specific discussions.
Asked if the Prime Minister acknowledged the Deputy Prime Minster was damaging the Labour party, the PMOS said that he didn’t comment on party matters.
Asked if the Prime Minister had spoken to Sir John Bourn or Sir Gus O’Donnell about the Deputy Prime Minister, the PMOS said that nothing had changed since this morning.
Asked if the Deputy Prime Minster registering his visit to the US was an acknowledgement of the appearance of impropriety, the PMOS said that the Deputy Prime Minster’s statement gave the reasons for his decision. The Prime Minister’s view was that this dealt with the matter. Put to him that the standards of the ministerial code were different from those of the register of members interests, the PMOS said that, as he had said this morning, the important thing was that the Deputy Prime Minster had not decided the planning application in this case, that had been decided by the local council. The Deputy Prime Minster did not decided individual licenses, that was done by the Gambling Commission and would actually be the subject of a vote in the House of Commons. Thirdly, as the Deputy Prime Minister had pointed out, his meeting with Mr. Anschutz had not taken place until after the contract on the sale of the Dome had been agreed.
Asked if he was saying that the Deputy Prime Minster had no involvement whatsoever with gambling or setting up casinos, the PMOS said that the question he was asked this morning related to the specific case of whether the Deputy Prime Minster was the one who decided the planning application in this case. The answer to that had been no. In response to the question of who granted gambling licenses in this case, the answer again was no. Asked if he was saying that he had no involvement whatsoever, the PMOS said that people were just as capable as him at looking back at the Deputy Prime Minster’s duties.
Asked if he was saying that the Deputy Prime Minster and Mr. Anschutz had never discussed the terms of the Dome deal, the PMOS said that the ODPM had set out what the Deputy Prime Minster had to say and he had nothing further to add to that. He would re-iterate that the Prime Minister’s view was that there was absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever in discussions between a senior government minister and a large investor in this country. Asked why they couldn’t have just met in an office with civil servants present, the PMOS said that the ODPM had set out the circumstances of the meeting and the Deputy Prime Minster had decided to register it.
Asked for the process by which matters were referred to Sir John Bourn, the PMOS said that he it was clearly spelled out in the terms of reference and he was not going to get into hypothetical cases. What we had said at the time was the process was as it had to be. The Prime Minister had to remain the ultimate guarantor of the ministerial code. We had never suggested otherwise because ultimately the person who decided the future of ministers had to be someone who was accountable to Parliament and through Parliament to the people. Asked if it wouldn’t be better for public confidence if Sir John Bourn investigated, the PMOS said that we made proper decisions based on what the actual assessment of the situation warranted and not what the media wanted.
Put to him that the terms of reference for Sir John Bourn’s job said that the Prime Minister may ask the independent advisor to the establish the facts in certain cases concerning the ministerial code and asked if the Prime minister had asked him to do that in this case, the PMOS said that he wasn’t going to give a running commentary on Sir John Bourn’s work. That shouldn’t be read one way or the other.
Asked if there was not a conflict of interest then why was it being registered, the PMOS said that ODPM had set out the reasons. Put to him that under the current system the first anyone would get to know about an investigation by Sir John Bourn was when it was finished, the PMOS said that he would not get into hypothetical questions, put to him that it wasn’t necessarily hypothetical since we for all anyone knew the Prime Minister had already asked for an investigation, the PMOS said that he thought he had been pretty clear on the matter. Asked if he believed that the public should be informed if Sir John Bourn were investigating a minister, the PMOS said that we should deal with matters as they arose.
Asked if either the Deputy Prime Minster or his permanent secretary asked for the advice of Sir John Bourn, the PMOS said that was not for him to comment on, but he would not encourage that line of thought.
Natwest 3
Asked what the Prime Minister had meant when he said he would look into the issue of bail in the United States for the "Natwest 3" and how that squared with the promise not to interfere in the legal process, the PMOS said that that was a fair question. In terms of interfering in this particular case nothing had changed. There was a legal process which would continue. However the Prime Minister was aware that there was concern by the families of these individuals that because the defendants were from the UK they might not be considered for bail in the US for obvious reasons. Therefore he had asked officials to look and see whether those concerns, should they arise, could be dealt with. That was not interfering with the individual cases but simply trying to reassure families about what would happen if those circumstances arose around bail.
Asked what assurances the Prime Minister was looking for, the PMOS said that there were two different aspects here. One was allowing normal legal proceedings to go forward. The other was if the question of bail arose and the fact that the people accused were from the UK became a factor in the bail hearing, then was there anything we could do to ensure that what would normally apply in bail hearings for US citizens in the US or in bail hearings in this country for that matter, would also apply here. Those were issues which were being examined.
Asked if that meant that while they were bailed they would at least be considered to be allowed to return to the UK, the PMOS said that he hoped people understood his drift. Put to him by the Telegraph that drift was not a particularly useful word, the PMOS said that clearly he had to be sensitive to the fact that there was a well established legal process in the United States which we could not interfere with. We recognised that there was a genuine concern arising out of particular circumstances but whilst we were looking into it he was not going to give a running commentary on that investigation or the individual cases themselves.
Asked if the Prime Minister was prepared to stand bail for the defendants, the PMOS asked that it be recorded that he responded with a stare.
Afghanistan
Asked to confirm whether another British soldier had been killed in Afghanistan, the PMOS said that he was aware of reports but he would rather not say any more until the MOD were ready to release details. He took the opportunity to point out to the lobby that last week in similar circumstances a number of outlets identified possible units which troops reported dead might have belonged, and that in turn had caused quite a lot of alarm amongst families of troops posted in Afghanistan. There were set procedures which the MOD observed and he would ask that out of sensitivity for the families everyone observed those set procedures because it did cause genuine problems for families.
Asked how we knew if we were winning or losing in Afghanistan, the PMOS said that it was down to the commander’s assessment on the ground of the difficulties which we faced. As the Prime Minister underlined this morning, the Defence Secretary had set out very very clearly in the full text of what he said in April, not the quote which was unfairly taken out of context, the tough missions we were taking on. That mission, and this point needed to repeatedly emphasized, was to support the first democratically elected government of Afghanistan. The wishes of 6 million people were that there should be a democratic system in Afghanistan. That was what we were supporting.
Put to him that the leader of Afghanistan had said that we were losing the war, the PMOS said that was a particularly one-sided expression of the overall view of President Karzai. What President Karzai had said repeatedly was that he paid tribute to the work of the UK in bringing about democracy in Afghanistan, he paid tribute to the work of the UK army in Afghanistan, he paid tribute to the work of the coalition repeatedly in Afghanistan and he had repeatedly underlined the determination of the Afghan people to have full control over all its territory.
delicious
digg
facebook
