Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Cash for Honours, Grace and Favour homes and Middle East Crisis
Cash for Honours
Asked if it was still the case that there had not yet been an approach from the police to question the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) replied that was correct.
Asked to confirm that the Prime Minister and all Downing Street staff would give the police full co-operation in their investigation, the PMOS said the position on that had been made clear, and he did not need to reiterate it. It had always been made clear that Downing Street would co-operate fully. However, that did not mean that the PMOS would give a running commentary on anything to do with a police investigation.
Asked if we expected everyone to co-operate with the Parliamentary enquiry, the PMOS said that we would co-operate fully where we needed to. The PMOS said that he was not going to give a running commentary on either enquiry.
Asked if there had been requests by the police for any documents, emails etc from the Prime Minister, the PMOS said again that he was not going to give a running commentary. We had made clear the position on the one question which we thought was valid; beyond that, we were not going to in any way give a running commentary.
Asked by Channel Four if we were expecting the Prime Minister to have to break his summer holiday in order to talk to the police, the PMOS replied that the question was a hypothetical one, and the PMOS repeated that we were not giving a running commentary on the investigation. The PMOS had been asked today if we had had any approaches from the police to interview the Prime Minister, and he had said: no.
Asked if any Downing Street officials had already been questioned in the enquiry, the PMOS repeated that he was not giving a running commentary. People could ask as many times as they liked, but we did not comment on police investigations, as that was the right and proper approach of the Government.
Asked if the Ministers who were being questioned by the police had access to Government lawyers, the PMOS replied: same answer as above.
Put that the question was not about commenting on the investigation, the PMOS said that it was and he was not going to answer it.
Asked why was Lord Sainsbury’s office was taking a different view regarding commenting on the situation, the PMOS replied that it was a matter for Lord Sainsbury. In terms of Downing Street, the PMOS had made clear our position.
Asked if the same was therefore true of Ian McCartney, the PMOS said again that he had made clear our position.
Put that taxpayers had a right to know whether they were paying for Government lawyers, the PMOS replied that taxpayers would rightly expect us to allow police investigations to go forward without giving a running commentary.
Asked what Lord Levy was doing in relation to the Middle East crisis, the PMOS replied that as he had said repeatedly this week, the value of Lord Levy’s work in the Middle East was that it was private.
Put that Lord Levy had attended a few public events, for example, the press conference with the Israeli Prime Minister, the PMOS said that the vast bulk of his work was behind the scenes and that was why it was effective.
Put that commenting and giving a factual answer were two different things, and people felt that there should be an opportunity to have factual answers to questions like if a No10 official was being interviewed by police, there should be a "yes" or "no" answer to that, the PMOS said that there was no right of appeal. We had taken the decision that we were not going to comment on police investigations, and people would consider it wrong for us to do so on any other matter. Therefore, it was equally wrong for us to do so on this matter.
Put that there was a difference between answering questions about police investigations and answering questions on taxpayers’ money being spent on Government lawyers, the PMOS said that the question about taxpayers’ money was asked in the context of the police investigation.
Put that the question could be answered without having to comment on the investigation, the PMOS said that it could not, because people knew as well as he did that it would be interpreted in the context of the police investigation.
Put that surely the reason we did not want to comment on a police enquiry was because we did not want in any way to obstruct it or influence it, and the same was true of those who had access to Government lawyers, the PMOS replied that people knew the implications that would be read into such an answer.
Put that they might be unhelpful to us, but they would not have an impact on the police enquiries, the PMOS said that it would be precisely interpreted in the context of a police investigation.
Asked repeatedly about how it would affect the investigation, the PMOS replied that he was not answering the questions because it was in relation to a police enquiry which was on-going.
Put that other people like Lord Sainsbury had been able to comment, and it was only Downing Street that would not comment, the PMOS replied that Downing Street’s position had been completely consistent with this police investigation, as indeed to every other police investigation.
Asked again why Downing Street would not comment when Ministers who spoke on behalf of the Government had, the PMOS said that we had adopted throughout, and not just in this police investigation but others too, a policy of not commenting, and we would maintain that policy.
Asked if we would let people knew if the Prime Minister did get interview, the PMOS replied that he could rely on one thing, which was that people would keep asking.
Grace and Favour homes
Asked if there had been any decisions yet on grace and favour homes, the PMOS said that he was not aware of any developments.
Put that certain councils were able to take over private homes that had been empty for six months or more, and was the Prime Minister concerned about any of the houses being left empty, the PMOS said that when we resolved the issue of these residences, we would let people know.
Middle East Crisis
Put that the Prime Minister had said we were in full support of Israel, but there seemed to be more anxiety than usual about what their actions might be, and what were the feelings about it all, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister viewed the current situation as very serious. The Prime Minister also reiterated that the kidnapped soldiers should be released. All sides needed to act with restraint, because the reality was that at some point, we needed to get back to the roadmap and negotiations, and we needed to do so urgently. It was precisely to stop this kind of escalation that we needed to get back to negotiations.
Put that the EU had voiced concerns about the Israelis using a disproportionate use of force and did we accept they had acted disproportionately, the PMOS replied that as the Prime Minister had said this morning, people in general might want to get into the finger pointing game, but that was not what was important. What was important was that the hostages were released and that people acted with restraint and get back to politics and that we did so as a matter of some urgency. The Prime Minister had clearly set out his position this morning, and what mattered much more than textual analysis was actually doing something about it. That was why the Prime Minister yesterday had spoken to the Lebanese Prime Minister, and why we were also in contact with Israel, and why he had spoken to the UN Secretary General. It was also why we welcomed the UN envoy going to the region, so that we did something about it all.
Asked what the Prime Minister’s concerns were for the safety of British citizens in the region, especially Lebanon, the PMOS said that the FCO had issued advice to British citizens in the area. Their best advice was to stay where they were and adopt a low profile, and to ensure that they were in touch with the embassy.
Asked to explain what the Prime Minister had meant when he had talked about not resolving it, and was he referring to Israeli action, the PMOS replied that this issue arose out of the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers in Gaza. That was followed by Israeli action in Gaza. Then, there were further kidnappings, followed by Israeli actions in Lebanon. Last night, there were rockets being fired into Israel, and there was a sequence of events, and it was that sequence that had to be stopped unfolding, as it stopped politics working. That was what people needed to do with some urgency.
Asked if we shared the analysis of some of the Israeli Government that it was Syria and Iran using Hezbollah and Hamas to rip up trouble, the PMOS replied that as he had said yesterday, the important thing was that all countries in the region did whatever was necessary to stop this sequence of events re-occurring. Everyone must have realised that it was in nobody’s interests to let this escalate further, but it was in everyone’s interests to de-escalate it.
Asked if the international community had not been as engaged on this matter as perhaps they should have been, the PMOS said that we had been engaged talking to people from an early stage in this. We knew that others had also been engaged talking to people. The important thing was that we pushed forward in an essential and urgent way as possible, and that was what the Prime Minister was trying to convey. This was something that we should not just let happen, but rather, we had to show urgency. That was why the G8, although it did not have a formal role, would be a useful forum for discussing with other world leaders what should be done. The PMOS said that it would be formally on the agenda at the G8, but also informally part of discussion.
delicious
digg
facebook
