Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Fox Hunting, Margaret Hodge and BBC.
Fox Hunting
Asked if the Hunting Bill as amended last night was still considered to be a Government Bill the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that it was still a Government Bill. Obviously the Bill had to be re-committied to make it workable before it came back to the Commons, probably some time next week. Asked if a total ban on hunting was now considered workable by the Government despite Alun Michael’s arguments to the contrary yesterday the PMOS said that the Commons had spoken and we always accepted that this was a free vote and we had to respect that and act accordingly. The next stage was to re-commit it, then it would go to the Commons, and subsequently to the Lords. Asked if it was fair to say that since it was a Government Bill it was now the stated Government intention to have a total ban on hunting with hounds, the PMOS said we would have to see what the outcome of the Committee process was and then what the response of the Lords was. Questioned further on this the PMOS said that he thought it was important that we took into account the free vote last night. We would now take the Bill off the floor of the House, return it next week, and from there it would go to the Lords. That was the process, let us see where we end up. Asked what the Government intended, the PMOS said that the Bill would have to reflect the vote last night, and that it would do. Equally we would have to wait and see what the response of the Lords was, once the Bill has been voted on again in the House. Asked when the Parliament Act could be invoked the PMOS said we were not at that stage, we would still have to wait for the Lords to vote and then see where we were. In this process it helped to take things one step at a time. Asked why the Prime Minister had abstained on Clause 11 last night the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had always intended to vote to support Clause 13, once it became clear that Clause 13 would be withdrawn then the Prime Minister did not attend. Asked if it was correct to infer that the Government accepted the possibility of a total ban the PMOS repeated that we had to respect the wishes of parliament. At this stage we had taken the Bill back into committee to take account of last nights vote. It would then go back to the House and then to the Lords. Let us take it one step at a time. Asked if the Prime Minister supported the revised Bill given that he didn’t vote for it the PMOS said we should take things one step at a time. Asked to clarify the Prime Minister’s view on Fox Hunting, the PMOS said the Prime Minister’s view on Fox Hunting was well known. The Prime Minister had supported Alun Michael’s Bill because it banned cruelty, ended hunting as a sport and set up the two tests of cruelty and utility. The Commons had voted in the way it had and that would be reflected in the Bill. Asked if the Prime Minister stood by his promise to insure that the Bill would go through the PMOS said that in terms of what happened next we would take it one step at a time. We should not prejudge what would come out of Committee or the Lords. Asked again if the Prime Minister supported the Bill given that it was still a Government Bill the PMOS said that attempts to get him to prejudge the next step were destined to failure. Asked why the Government had dropped the amendment the PMOS said that we had always maintained that MPs would have a free vote on the issue of a total ban. The Speaker of the House of Commons had selected the order of amendments. If Clause 13 had gone through the MPs would not have had the chance to vote on a total ban, therefore it was important to give them the chance. We respected the wishes of parliament and it was a not a matter of whether this was what we wanted or not, given that it was a free vote, the Commons had made its decision. Asked why, given that this process had taken six years so far we didn’t just ban Fox Hunting, the PMOS said it was important that we abided by Parliamentary procedure. It certainly wasn’t pointless to try to reach consensus on such a contentious issue and furthermore the attempt to reach consensus had been genuine and was motivated by a genuine desire to find a way through. Asked for assurances that the Government would use the Parliament Act to get the Bill through, the PMOS said that it was the role of Parliament to employ the Parliament Act and we had yet to get to that stage. Asked when the Prime Minister knew that the vote would be changed given that we said yesterday Prime Minister would be present to vote the PMOS said that what we had said yesterday had been true at the time. It only became clear afterwards that circumstances had changed. Asked if this hadn’t been apparent all day the PMOS repeated that the way in which the Speaker made the selection meant that MPs would not have an opportunity to vote on a total ban. Asked what circumstances had changed during the day the PMOS said he didn’t think we needed to get into the precise processology. Asked if this situation was not an example of extraordinary Government incompetence the PMOS said it was the Speaker rather than the Government who had decided the order. Asked why the Government seemed "luke-warm" about a total ban the PMOS said clearly we would have preferred a consensus. That was why Alun Michael invested the time, energy and commitment in trying to find a consensus. The Commons had decided and we should do what was Parliamentarily correct and wait for the House of Lords to reach it’s separate decision as well as to wait for the Bill to come back to the Commons next week. Asked if he accepted that the attempt to reach consensus was now dead the PMOS said that obviously now that MPs had voted for a complete ban the original Bill was no longer in tact and would be returned to committee for further work. Asked if the Government was being blackmailed by MPs on this issue the PMOS said that the facts were that it was the Speaker who had selected the order of amendments. Given the Government’s commitment to give MPs a free vote on a total ban, the Government withdrew its amendment to allow that. Asked if in the wake of this and recent Parliamentary voting behavior the Prime Minister had full confidence in his Chief Whip the PMOS reminded journalists that it had been a free vote.
Margaret Hodge
Questioned as to Margaret Hodge’s fitness for public office, let alone Minister for Children given the child abuse controversy when she was head of Islington council the PMOS said that Margaret Hodge had very openly and honestly set out her position yesterday on the Today Programme. She had admitted mistakes had been made, she had also set out - a view shared by the Prime Minister - that she had had the chance to reflect on those mistakes. She had had the chance to prove particularly in relation to the Sure Start scheme that she was an effective minister. With regard to the Evening Standard story today, her statement made clear that the full report into the events in Islington gave a more rounded view then that contained within the Evening Standard. The report made clear that Child Protection procedures had been put into action where appropriate and it was unfortunate that the Evening Standard chose not to reflect the memo in full. Asked if these were not merely mistakes but rather ghastly blunders and simply too serious to just apologise for the PMOS said that Margaret Hodge had made clear, very honestly yesterday that she had accepted the full seriousness of the mistakes that were made, mistakes that occurred in other parts of the country at that time. She had also made clear that allegations about individual cases had been dealt with, with extreme seriousness and where appropriate the Police had been brought in. The full memo published in the April 1990 report does reflect that. Asked about the timescale of events in Islington the PMOS said that the important point was that lessons had been learnt by the profession as a whole and by politicians, including Margaret Hodge, who had had dealings with these matters. It was important to concentrate on the present and whether in current actions people demonstrated that lessons had been learnt. Questioned further about her honesty the PMOS said that the point had been put to Margaret Hodge on the Today Programme yesterday and he didn’t think that anyone who had listened to that interview could say that she was trying to be evasive about her responsibility or that mistakes were made. Equally what she was trying to say was that important lessons had been learnt by all concerned, and she included herself in that. Put to him that she had been very evasive and that given the seriousness of the matter she didn’t sound like the sort of person who had learnt from her mistakes at all, the PMOS said that people were entitled to their view. In terms of lessons about how agencies worked together and in terms of serious lessons about how these very difficult cases were handled, Margaret Hodge did convey the strong view that lessons had been learned and she had not excluded herself from that.
BBC
Asked to respond to a claim of a possible deal in the on ongoing argument between the Government and the BBC, the PMOS said that he was sorry to have to keep this issue going. The position was the same as yesterday, as the day before that, and indeed for the last month. Does the BBC accept that the allegations made on Thursday the 29th of May were false? Did the BBC accept that it should have checked the story before broadcast? Did the BBC accept that they had made a mistake? The PMOS told journalists that Ben Bradshaw would also be writing to Stephen Whittle, the guardian of the BBC guidelines, to ask if the guidelines had been changed to reflect what appears to be a new policy of allowing reporters to make false allegations without checking the facts first. Asked if this incident had undermined the peoples trust in the office of the Prime Minister, the PMOS said that if people made false allegations of the most serious kind then it was right and proper that the Government made it clear in the most stark terms that it didn’t accept those false allegations and that those allegations should not have been made in the first place without having been checked first.
Asked if the Prime Minster had "lost his grip" the PMOS said that if we reflected on this period in which we had seen; a very difficult situation in Iraq, a war fought successfully, a period of reconstruction begun in Iraq; continued improvements in Health, Education and in Transport accepting all the difficulties that remained; the Prime Minister’s continued commitment to see those policies through, he didn’t think it was possible to say that the Prime Minister had lost his grip. Challenged on this the PMOS said that in terms of waiting times, in terms of what actually mattered to people, in terms of new buildings, more doctors, more nurses, more teaches, no one was saying that all those problems were resolved, but was there a strategy? Yes. In terms of Transport as Alistair Darling had made clear yesterday, again no one underestimated the long road and track to go. But again there was a clear strategy.
delicious
digg
facebook
