Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: 7/7 Video, Deputy Prime Minister, Rupert Murdoch, Afghanistan and Natwest Three
7/7 Video
Asked if there was any reaction to the video, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that we would not be giving a reaction as we thought the attention should focus on the quiet reflection of the nation marking the 7/7 anniversary tomorrow. We did not think anything should be allowed to get in the way of that.
Asked about an inquiry into 7/7 intelligence, the PMOS said that he had already dealt with that precise question yesterday. Journalists could look back over yesterday’s briefing for the answer he had given.
Deputy Prime Minister
Asked why there was radio silence on whether Sir John Bourne or Sir Gus O’Donnell were looking into the issues presently concerning the Deputy Prime Minister, the PMOS said that he was not a spokesman for the Cabinet Secretary but he was sure that Sir Gus O’Donnell would reply in his own good time. Put that some people might think there was a cover up going on, the PMOS suggested that no doubt Sky would continue to speculate as always but that did not make it right. Sir Gus O’Donnell would, he suspected, reply in his own good time. He had already outlined the Prime Minister’s position through out the week.
The PMOS went on to say that he had expressed full support for the Deputy Prime Minister earlier this morning, which Sky had somehow managed to misinterpret into lukewarm support so he fully expected further translation problems between what he said and what Sky reported. Such was life. Asked about the intervention from Sir Alistair Graham, the PMOS said that the Deputy Prime Minister had set out the position; it had not changed so he saw no need to comment further.
Asked whether the Prime Minister was satisfied that he saw no need for an investigation into whether the Ministerial Code had been broken despite Sir Philip Mawer’s investigation, the PMOS said that the Deputy Prime Minister had now registered the ranch visit and as he had already said several times this week the Prime Minister believed it was perfectly legitimate for the Deputy Prime Minister to meet an investor in this way. It was also worth remembering that the Deputy Prime Minister did not decide the outcome of the planning application or the outcome of gambling licences.
Asked whether the press would be informed if Sir John Bourne was instructed by the Prime Minister to look into it, the PMOS said that he had also answered this yesterday and that answer remained the same today, which was that the question was a hypothetical one and as they knew he did not answer those types of question. Put that if the press were not told that Sir John Bourne was conducting an investigation then Sir John Bourne may as well not exist, the PMOS said that was not the case. The terms of reference had been set out at the time of Sir John Bourne’s appointment and we would abide by those but would not be drawn into a hypothetical line of questioning. Asked what advice Sir John Bourne had given the Prime Minister on whether the ministerial code had been breached, the PMOS said that he was not going to get into the detail of discussions that the Prime Minister had with his officials or advisers and that should not be taken as either meaning one way or the other. He had answered many questions on this already this week and they were free to look up those answers up in the briefing notes.
In response to the suggestion that if Sir John Bourne was still in the hypothetical then it had not happened yet, the PMOS said that it was not up to him to tell the press how to interpret what he said. In response to the suggestion that any investigation by Sir John Bourne would be a sham if the press were not told, the PMOS said that he did not think Sir John Bourne would in any way be associated with a sham. He was a highly distinguished figure. Asked if the Prime Minister had instructed Sir John Bourne, the PMOS said he had not.
Put that if Sir Gus O’Donnell was replying in his own good time then that suggested that he was considering looking into it, the PMOS said that was wrong. He had said the he had no doubt that he would reply in his own good time, but his role was not to speak for Sir Gus O’Donnell. Asked whether Sir Gus O’Donnell had a role in this following Sir John Bourne’s appointment, the PMOS said that his involvement would be because the opposition had written to him. Asked whether Sir Gus O’Donnell now referred letters to Sir John Bourne, the PMOS said that Sir Gus O’Donnell would decide how he replied to letters sent to him.
Asked whether it was legitimate for Deputy Prime Minister to advocate one site or another, the PMOS said that sounded like a hypothetical question. The Deputy Prime Minister had set out his position this morning on Radio 4 and he had nothing further to add to that. Asked whether the department had put pressure on South End to drop their application, the PMOS said that the Deputy Prime Minister had also dealt with that issue this morning. Any further questions should be directed to the department.
Rupert Murdoch
Asked about the Freedom of Information request about Prime Ministerial meetings with Rupert Murdoch, the PMOS said that the FOI Commissioner had said that we should publish the dates of official conversations, as defined by the Commissioner, and those could now be found on the Cabinet Office web site. Asked what official conversations meant, the PMOS said it meant conversations that were not political or personal. In other words where official business was discussed. Asked who adjudicated that, the PMOS said it was where official business was discussed or where contacts were otherwise clearly official in nature. Asked what official business was, the PMOS said that the Commissioner had said that there was not a need to reveal the content of conversations.
Afghanistan
Asked if there was anything more on troops, the PMOS said that even though it was old fashioned we needed to make the decision before announcing it. Asked what was different in this request from the Ed Butler one, the PMOS said that was misunderstanding the process. The operational commanders on the ground in Afghanistan assessed their needs; those needs were then passed back to their military superiors in London who in turn passed it up the political chain. What people had seen was each step along that route.
Natwest Three
Asked if there had been any progress on the Natwest three, the PMOS said we were actively considering what we could do but the position remained as it was yesterday.
delicious
digg
facebook
