Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Deputy Prime Minister-Ministerial Code and Middle East
Deputy Prime Minister-Ministerial Code
Asked if the Prime Minister would now have an enquiry into whether the Deputy Prime Minister had breached the Ministerial Code, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that John Prescott had set out his position, which was that he had thanked Sir Philip Mawer for his report. Mr. Prescott had registered his stay at the ranch, and he recognised that the procedure for registering gifts needed to be improved. The facts were known and the Deputy Prime Minister had responded.
Put that the Committee had said that the point was not about the registration, as the Deputy Prime Minister had done so through his department, but rather, it was about the Ministerial Code, and the Prime Minister was the only arbiter of the Ministerial Code, the PMOS said that in terms of the problem, it had been resolved. John Prescott had now registered both the stay and the gifts, and he had set about improving the procedure for registering gifts in his department.
Put that the problem was the perception of a conflict of interest, and that was a matter for the Ministerial Code, rather than the declaration, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister had very clearly set out and publicly that the Deputy Prime Minister was perfectly right to discuss matter with Mr. Anschutz. Equally, the Deputy Prime Minister had set out, and the Prime Minister had accepted, that Mr. Prescott was not involved in granting planning permission for a license for a casino, and therefore, that addressed the issue.
Asked when the Prime Minister would reply to Don Foster’s letter about whether Mr. Prescott had broken the Ministerial Code, the PMOS said that in terms of letters, we would reply when we would reply.
Put that Mr. Prescott had just admitted that he had breached the Ministerial Code, and what was the Prime Minister’s response to that, and were there any plans to reprimand Mr. Prescott in any way, the PMOS replied that Mr. Prescott had rectified the problem, and the Prime Minister believed that it was the end of it.
Asked how the Deputy Prime Minister had rectified the problem by admitting that he had breached the Ministerial Code, the PMOS said that Mr. Prescott had rectified the problem by registering the visit, and he had set about improving the procedure for registering gifts in the department.
Asked if that meant that Ministers who admitted that they had breached the Ministerial Code could "get away with it", the PMOS replied: no. What it meant was that if there was a problem, it was addressed, but it was also recognised that it was in the wider interests of the country that the Deputy Prime Minister met an investor who was going to improve a major part of London in a very significant way.
Put that by merely meeting Mr. Anschutz and accepting hospitality from him, that could be viewed as a conflict of interest, the PMOS said that the logical implication of that was that no Minister at any time could meet anybody in the business world. People only had to state that to recognise how ludicrous it was. Rather, what we did have was a situation in which visits and gifts were registered so that people could see what had happened. That was what had now happened in this case.
Put that it was not only about meeting an investor, but rather, it was about accepting hospitality from them as well, the PMOS said that the hospitality had now been registered.
Put again that it was not about registering it, but accepting it, the PMOS replied that it had been registered and that what people seemed to be suggesting was that there should not be meetings of any kind with major investors.
Asked if the Prime Minister still stood by the section of the Ministerial Code regarding Ministers accepting gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which could or might appear place them under an obligation, the PMOS replied that in terms of the transparency of the process, the Deputy Prime Minister had registered what was required. That should be viewed in light of the benefit of a major investment in this country which would result in both housing and jobs.
Asked if it was OK for a Minister to accept hospitality as long as it was declared, the PMOS said that the situation was as he had set out. In this case, Sir Philip Mawer had said that the hospitality should be registered, which it had been.
Asked what Sir John Bourn’s job actually was, the PMOS said that it was set out in the terms of reference at the time. The PMOS pointed out to journalists that in this case, no-one was now disputing the facts.
Asked if the Deputy Prime Minister had breached the Ministerial Code at the time of accepting the gifts etc, the PMOS replied that what was important was that when this matter was drawn to Mr. Prescott’s attention, he registered the visit and the gifts, and he was improving the procedures in his office.
Asked if the Prime Minister thought that the situation was damaging for the Government, the PMOS said that what people should recognise was that it was this Government that had set up these procedures. Those procedures had now been followed, and that all the facts in this were out in the open. That would not have been the case before this Government.
Put that when David Blunkett had breached the Ministerial Code, it had led in part to his resignation, and Mr. Prescott had admitted that he breached the Code, and was he going to get away completely "unpunished", the PMOS said again that what was important was that when the problem had been pointed out John Prescott had voluntarily registered the matter, and it had now been investigated by Sir Philip Mawer. As a result, Mr. Prescott was improving the procedures in his office, and the Prime Minister believed that that was the end of it.
Asked repeatedly about the situation, the PMOS stressed that the facts were now known.
Asked what was the point of the Ministerial Code, the PMOS said that the point was to ensure transparency. It was also transparent that the issue had been resolved in that the Deputy Prime Minister had registered the visit and the gifts.
Asked if the Code was therefore not designed to avoid a conflict of interest, the PMOS said that it was designed to ensure that everyone knew that the issues were out in the open.
Asked if we would accept that the matter was drawn to the public’s attention by the press, therefore would the items have been declared if the press had not found out about them, the PMOS said that the matter was now resolved. The Prime Minister believed, as he had stated on many occasions, that it was right that Mr. Prescott had met Mr. Anschutz for the reasons set out.
Asked again if it was OK for Mr. Prescott to accept the gifts now they’d been declared, the PMOS replied again that the situation had been resolved.
Middle East
Asked if the Prime Minister was aware of the damage happening to British interests in the Middle East by the Prime Minister not appearing to call for a ceasefire, even if in practice, no-one would follow it, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister had made clear from the beginning that he wanted the conflict to end. What people appeared to want him to do, however, was to call for a unilateral ceasefire. That might make people feel good for a few hours, but not only was it unlikely to have any impact, but also, a quick-fix solution would not deliver a sustainable peace in the Middle East. What we had to do was to go back to where Kofi Annan started from yesterday, which was a recognition that this problem did not start with Israel, but rather, it had started with unprovoked attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah. The central problem we had was that we had two groups, Hezbollah and Hamas, who whilst they were elected, did not abide by democratic standards. Not only did they maintain militias, but they used them irrespective of the views of others, and the case of Lebanon, irrespective of the view of the vast majority of the government, even though they were actually part of that government. It did seem to be a very familiar issue in that in 1982, Sinn Fein were first elected, but it was not until the IRA called the final ceasefire in 1998 that Sinn Fein became part of the political process that led to the Good Friday agreement.
Asked again about British interests, and that years of work by British diplomats would be undone, and the Prime Minister could do what Kofi Annan had done by calling for a ceasefire, and the Archbishop of Canterbury urging the Government to back the UN’s call for a ceasefire, the PMOS said that the journalist was ignoring the fact that the Prime Minister had called for an end to conflict, and he had negotiated a G8 statement which called for an end to the conflict. The key question was that whenever we signed up to a UN resolution such as 1559, did we mean it? What 1559 called for was for militias in Lebanon to be disarmed. What the Middle East roadmap called for was for Hamas to not only recognise Israel, and that it had to be part of the two-state solution, but also there could only be one authority. The PMOS asked: did we mean that, or did we not, or were we more interested in rhetoric, rather than reality?
Put that it was therefore OK for the Prime Minister to make a statement on domestic politics which generated a positive headline, but it was not OK when it came to British interests in the region, the PMOS asked in what way was it in the interests of the Middle East to pretend that by calling for a unilateral ceasefire wouldo help the situation?
Put that it could be an appeal to both sides, with Britain appearing to call on both sides to stop fighting, the PMOS said that Britain had appealed right from the start of this conflict for an end to it. However, people had to recognise that it had to be done in a way that would not only have some impact in reality, but also, would be sustainable. The only way that was going to be sustainable was if we meant what we said when we signed up to resolution 1559.
Asked what we said to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s remarks today regarding the Government supporting the UN in seeking a ceasefire, the PMOS replied that we supported the UN in calling for an end to the conflict on all sides. That was why we had put forward, and why Kofi Annan had believed it was a good idea, the proposal for a stabilisation force. The PMOS said that this was not going to end as long as Hezbollah was firing rockets into Israel, and as long as soldiers were kidnapped and not released.
Asked about reports regarding a split between Downing Street and the FCO, the PMOS said that there was no split. What we were all united in was seeking a sustainable peace, and a peace in which the paramilitaries’ tails did not wag the democratic dog. It also needed to be one in which the elected Lebanese government was able to exercise its sovereignty throughout all of Lebanon, and as 1559 had set out, in which Hamas recognised what was agreed in the roadmap, which was that armed militias should not be allowed into Israel.
Asked if the Prime Minister believed to date that Israel’s actions were proportionate, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister had always said that Israel’s actions should be proportionate, and as he had said all week, he was not going to give a running commentary of what Israel did or did not do. There would not be a sustainable peace if only one side was concentrated on. A unilateral ceasefire was not going to deliver a long term peace. The PMOS asked: why had we got this problem? Hamas had seized and kidnapped soldiers, they had killed others and refused to release them, and Hamas supported suicide bombings into Israel. Hezbollah ignored the wishes of the majority of the Lebanese government and fired rockets into Israel, and kidnapped and killed Israeli soldiers. That was the source of the problem, and 1559 recognised that.
Asked about the other side which had said not calling for a ceasefire was allowing Israel to continue its military action to drive Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon, the PMOS said that we had made it clear from the beginning when we negotiated the G8 statement, that Israel should show restraint and avoid civilian casualties. Equally, however, if people looked at the comments of the Hezbollah leader, the person who was responsible for the rockets going into Israel, it was clear that he was not showing any signs of wanting this conflict to end, or of recognising that Israel did have a right to security. The PMOS said that we needed not be unilateralist in this, but rather, we needed to recognise that it was only going to be possible to move forward whenever there was a genuine prospect of peace on both sides.
Asked what the Prime Minister’s thoughts were about people like Omar Sheik Bakri Mohammed returning to Britain as part of the humanitarian evacuation, the PMOS replied that he was the subject of an exclusion order and that would be implemented.
Asked if the Prime Minister had any view on the possibility of an Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon, and also, what the progress of the British evacuation was, the PMOS replied that in terms of Israeli operations, he was not going to give a running commentary on it. In terms of the evacuation, we had now evacuated around 3000 people thanks to the magnificent efforts of the Royal Navy. That included 1700 yesterday. The PMOS said that 30 British citizens left on a UN ferry going from the south of Lebanon, and there were some 28 others as part of a bus convoy which was on its way to Beirut. In terms of others in the south, we were very much on the case, but there will be further evacuations from Beirut today on the frigate HMS St. Alban’s as well as a ferry chartered from Greece, the NV Alkioni, which was at the quayside in Beirut.
Asked how many British nationals were left in Lebanon, the PMOS said that there would be some British nationals who would choose to stay in Lebanon, as that was their right to do so.
Asked why we wouldn’t say whether the Israeli actions were proportionate, the PMOS replied that rather than rhetoric, what was important was that we focused on where we believed we could make a difference. We believed that we could make a difference by putting together a diplomatic process that would not only bring about a cessation of the conflict on all sides, because it put in place the conditions best to do so, but also, it would result in a sustainable, long lasting, durable peace settlement which addressed the underlying causes. What people had to ask was what the best way to bring that about? Was the best way shouting from the sidelines, or was it to quietly, behind the scenes, get on with the diplomatic work? That was what we would do.
delicious
digg
facebook
