Press Briefing: 11am Wednesday 30 April 2003

Briefing from the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman on: EU Defence, Russia/Iraq/International Relations, Middle East, Northern Ireland, Iraq and Foundation Hospitals.

EU Defence

Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Berlusconi of Italy would use their dinner this evening to discuss yesterday's meeting on EU defence issues in Brussels attended by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that, for the record, tonight's dinner had been in the diary for some time. It had not been set up quickly as a result of yesterday's events. The two Prime Ministers would have a wide-ranging discussion, as you would expect, in which it was very possible that the meeting in Brussels would be raised.

Asked about the Brussels meeting, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had underlined yesterday, it was important not to do anything which would undermine NATO. We were continuing to seek to enhance European capabilities to strengthen our defences, but equally were taking great care not to do anything which would cut across NATO, thereby weakening it. That was precisely what all fifteen ESDP partners had signed up to. Obviously we would look at the proposals which had been put forward yesterday. However, as the Prime Minister had pointed out on Monday, they were the views of four of fifteen EU member states. Any decisions or changes would have to be agreed at the European Council by unanimity. A number of issues contained in yesterday's statement repeated previously stated positions. There were other issues with which we did not instinctively agree - for example, the formation of a European Security and Defence union (ESDU). Obviously we supported practical co-operation between members states. However, we were not in favour of a self-elected inner core with an organisation created for members who wanted to go faster. In answer to further questions, the PMOS took the opportunity to draw journalists' attention to comments made by other EU Foreign Ministers which supported the position we were taking. For example, the Spanish Foreign Minister had said yesterday that "European security and defence policy cannot be set by three or four member states". The Italian Foreign Minister had said on Monday that "If the embryo of increased military co-operation was developed in Brussels, I regard it with a very critical eye". The Portuguese Defence Minister had said, "With respect to military capacity, we and the generality of European nations are in favour of complementarity and not duplication of means with NATO". Yesterday's statement had talked about further central planning. In our view, there was already assured access to NATO planning through Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). We were not clear what the purpose of duplicating such a planning centre would be. It seemed more sensible to us to put extra investment into increasing capabilities rather than another HQ.

Asked if the Prime Minister believed that France and Germany were taking the position they were taking on this matter in order to embarrass him, the PMOS said that it was perfectly reasonable for countries to meet up and discuss issues of mutual interest. However, the UK had been at the heart of the formulation of ESDP and would continue to be heavily involved. We were involved in the issue from a position of genuine strength. A meeting of four countries was not a substitute for decision-making at the European Council. We were perfectly sanguine about people meeting up and expressing their views. Equally, however, we were entitled to express our own opinions regarding areas where we did not agree and would continue to do so.

Russia/Iraq/International Relations

Asked if the Prime Minister had been surprised at President Putin's treatment of him in Moscow yesterday, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister was perfectly relaxed and unfazed about yesterday. Given the significant differences within the international community regarding the issue of Iraq, it should come as no surprise that different leaders wanted to set out their differing views. We had no problem with that whatsoever. The PMOS said he would not dispute the fact that yesterday's joint press conference in Moscow was one of the more interesting ones he had sat through. However, it should be noted that the talks the Prime Minister had had privately with President Putin had been good. He pointed out that the last time the Prime Minister had visited the President in October 2002, the write-ups from the press conference at the time were, in many ways, of the same order as today, with journalists predicting that we wouldn't be able to reach agreement on Resolution 1441. Well we had, although he added that that was not to make any predictions at this point as to what might happen in the future regarding UN Resolutions. As the Prime Minister had said, we were seeking, through diplomatic conversations, to reach a point where the UN and Coalition were working in partnership on a post-Saddam Iraq and where neither was subservient to the other. President Bush himself had said that the UN should have a vital role to play in a post-conflict Iraq. We wanted that partnership to work. There was a deal to be done if people wanted to do it. However, as the Prime Minister had said in a briefing en route to Moscow yesterday, we were not going to engage in the diplomatic rigmarole of the type we had seen during the failed attempts to reach a second UN Resolution. We certainly had no intention of indulging in another diplomatic dance of the nine veils. If people wanted a deal on the issues, there was a deal to be done. Intensive dialogue would be taking place over the coming weeks through which we hoped an agreement could be reached. Through good will and common sense, we remained firmly of the view that a partnership could be found. We would have to see.

Put to him that yesterday's meeting in Brussels and the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow showed that the countries with which the UK had fallen out in the run-up to the Iraq conflict were far from being willing to 'repent' and that the fact that the Prime Minister was 'relaxed' and 'unfazed' about what had happened made him look complacent, the PMOS said that he would disagree. In the Commons debate on Iraq the day before the conflict had started, the Prime Minister had said that there were big geo-political issues which the world needed to address. It should therefore come as no surprise that these issues were being ventilated in public. Over the next few weeks, important decisions would have to be taken and people would have to understand what was at stake. We hoped that agreement could be found on post-conflict issues. The Prime Minister believed that there was a deal which could be done. However, the reality on the ground was that there were around 250,000 Coalition forces inside Iraq. It was simply not possible - or practical - to expect them to hand over everything lock, stock and barrel to the UN. It was important for people to be patient and wait and see how these things were shaken out. For example, decisions would have to be taken about the issue of sanctions and Iraq. It was a bizarre argument that sanctions should remain when the regime had gone. Questioned further, the PMOS said that there would clearly need to be some straight-talking between global leaders in the weeks and months ahead. These issues would be addressed and shaken out. The Prime Minister had set out his thoughts on this matter very clearly. We were focussing our attention on post-conflict issues which we hoped could be dealt with and worked through together. Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned that the choices had not yet been made, the PMOS said that we would wait and see how matters progressed in the weeks to come. The Prime Minister had made very clear what he saw as the dangers of a multi-polar world and why he believed that a strategic partnership was the way forward. There was clearly a need for plain talking. The Prime Minister had made this clear. You could not do that and, when views were expressed, blanch when it happened. The Prime Minister had a good and mature relationship with President Putin. They were due to see each other in St Petersburg, then at the G8 Summit in France in June, after which the President would be making a State visit to the UK.

Middle East

Asked to confirm reports that the Middle East 'road map' would be published today, the PMOS said that the new Palestinian Cabinet was being sworn in today, following which the road map would be handed to the parties. It was not impossible that it would be published today. We would have to wait and see how things panned out. It went without saying that publication would be a significant moment to which the UK Government would doubtless wish to respond. As his colleague had underlined in yesterday's briefing, it was important to recognise that the road map was not the US's road map. It had been agreed by the Quartet compromising the EU, UN, Russia and the US.

Northern Ireland

Asked for a reaction to today's Times' report which had published details of leaked transcripts of conversations between Martin McGuinness and the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell, and whether he would agree that they called into question Mr Powell's impartiality over Northern Ireland, the PMOS said that it wasn't our policy to comment on either intelligence issues or alleged leaked documents. The Government's energies, as ever, were focussed on trying to find a way forward on Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister was meeting David Trimble again later today as part of the ongoing contacts between the parties. As all the parties in Northern Ireland recognised, Mr Powell was someone who had put a huge amount of energy and effort into the process, along with other members of the British and Irish Governments. Asked if he would agree that the revelations were embarrassing given we were at such a critical stage in the process, the PMOS said that from the very outset everyone had been focussing their attention on trying to implement the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) in its entirety. That remained our focus. While we had made significant progress, 'acts of completion' were still required.

Asked if a definitive statement on the status of the Assembly elections would be made, the PMOS said that May 29 was the date in the diary. There was no other date.

Iraq

Asked for a reaction to yesterday's incident in Falluja yesterday in which a number of Iraqis were reported to have been killed, the PMOS said that the matter was being looked into. He had nothing further to add to what had been said about this matter yesterday.

Foundation Hospitals

Asked how significant the Prime Minister believed the forthcoming vote on foundation hospitals to be, the PMOS said the Prime Minister believed passionately that, at a time when record resources were going into the NHS, that money had to be tied to reform. If reform was not allied to the additional investment, it was clear that the change which everyone wanted to see would not come about. The Prime Minister would continue to put the argument for this policy, which he believed was right. Foundation hospitals should also be seen alongside a range of other reforms to the health service, such as the extension of choice for cardiac patients, diagnostic and treatment centres and the expansion in the numbers of doctors and nurses. He was obviously very passionate about public service reform and, as he had said on Monday, he did not believe that now was the time to trim on reform. On the contrary - it was the time to push ahead.