Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Phonecalls, Stephen Byers/Martin Sixsmith, Foxhunting, Draft Communications Bill and Adoption.
Phonecalls
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister had spoken to the new French Prime Minister yesterday to congratulate him on his appointment. He had also spoken to the Dutch Prime Minister, Wim Kok, to express his sympathy for what had happened in the Netherlands on Monday. Asked whether he had spoken to President Chirac, the PMOS said that they had spoken on Monday, as we had briefed at the time.
Stephen Byers/Martin Sixsmith
Asked to clarify whether the misunderstanding concerning the resignation of Martin Sixsmith had been cleared up on 25 February, the PMOS said that Sir Richard Mottram’s statement on that day had made clear the reason why Stephen Byers had said what he had said on 15 February. Yesterday’s statement from DTLR did not add anything further. As it had underlined, the misunderstanding had happened in good faith, based on an incorrect understanding of the discussions which had taken place on that Friday. It had drawn a line under this issue inasmuch an agreement between Mr Sixsmith and the Department had now been concluded. Of course we would all rather this episode had not happened. However, it had - and it had now ended. We were moving on. We couldn’t turn the clock back.
As yesterday’s statement had indicated, both sides had expressed regret without apportioning blame. Put to him that he appeared to be implying that Stephen Byers’ Statement on 26 February had been wrong because matters had been clarified the day before by Sir Richard Mottram, the PMOS said that Mr Byers had made clear in his Statement of the 26th why he had said what he had said on the 15th, based on discussions he had with his Permanent Secretary - who had said in his statement the previous day why he had reached the conclusions he had reached. It was there in black and white for all to see. Yesterday’s statement from the Department drew the employment issue to a close but did not add anything to what we did and did not know in relation to this affair.
Put to him repeatedly that the Secretary of State ought to correct the impression he had given to the House on the 26th that Mr Sixsmith had resigned, the PMOS said that Mr Byers’ Statement on 26 February had explained the basis on which he had understood that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign.
Asked repeatedly why it was considered right for Mr Byers to correct what he had said in his Dimbleby interview of 24 February but not correct what he had told Parliament, the PMOS said that Sir Richard’s statement on the 25th illustrated transparently why he had believed Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign. Mr Byers had set out to Parliament the basis upon which he had said what he had said on the 15th, namely that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign.
Asked if he was implying that we were satisfied that someone who was accountable to Parliament should not go before the House to correct a mistaken impression he had given, the PMOS said no of course not. Mr Byers had stood before the House to set out the basis upon which he had said what he had said on the 15th. Sir Richard Mottram’s statement of the 25th was important because he had given his view of the conversation that had taken place earlier on the same day. As yesterday’s DTLR statement made clear, this had been based on an incorrect understanding, but one which had been held in good faith. Clearly it had been a confused picture. Things were being said at a time of stress for all concerned, which had resulted in people going away with different understandings of what had been agreed. In the end, the important point was that what had been said had been said in good faith and that a line had now been drawn under it.
Put to him that two months had elapsed since then and that Mr Byers should make another Statement to Parliament to correct what he had said on 26 February, the PMOS said that the Secretary of State had gone to Parliament to explain why he had said what he had said in relation to Martin Sixsmith. As he had stated at the time, the details of Mr Sixsmith’s departure were still being negotiated. That was a pretty important point. Put to him repeatedly that Mr Byers’ Statement to Parliament had been called ‘The Resignation of Martin Sixsmith’, the PMOS repeated that the Secretary of State had explained to Parliament why we had been in the position we had been in on 15 February.
Asked again why Mr Byers had felt an obligation to correct what he had said on Dimbleby but not what he had told Parliament, the PMOS said that the reason why he had made a Statement to the House was well documented. He had wanted to correct a false impression which might have been created as a result of his appearance on the Dimbleby Programme. He had spelled out to the House the sequence of events, as underlined in the Permanent Secretary’s statement, which explained why he had said what he had said - in good faith - on 15 February.
Pressed further as to why Mr Byers was refusing to make a Statement to Parliament to correct what he had said concerning Mr Sixsmith’s resignation despite the fact that Mr Sixsmith had been making it clear at the time that he in fact had not resigned, the PMOS said he had already answered this point several times. The fact that details of Mr Sixsmith’s departure were still being negotiated had been referred to both in Sir Richard’s statement of the 25th and Mr Byers’ Statement to the House on the 26th - a fairly central point.
Put to him that Mr Byers had a duty to explain to the House why what he had said concerning Martin Sixsmith’s resignation had been wrong, the PMOS said he would disagree. Mr Byers had stood before Parliament to explain the circumstances which had led him to say what he had said on Friday 15 February. Challenged that Mr Byers owed an explanation to the House of Commons rather than the general public, the PMOS said that in the last twenty-four hours, DTLR had released a statement which concluded the employment discussion between the Department and Mr Sixsmith - and which both sides were bound not to discuss further. He noted that Mr Sixsmith appeared to have underlined this point when he had spoken to journalists yesterday.
Asked if he was saying that the Secretary of State would not be making a further Statement to the House because the details of Mr Sixsmith’s departure were confidential, the PMOS said no. There was a duty on both sides not to divulge any detail of the negotiations which had been ongoing. He repeated that the reason why Mr Byers had stood before the House on the 26th was because he had wanted to the correct the false impression that had been created by what he had said on the Dimbleby Programme and to explain why he had said what he had said on 15 February, based on a misunderstanding which Sir Richard Mottram’s statement made transparently clear.
Asked if he was implying that as far as Downing Street was concerned, what Mr Byers had told the House on the 26th was true, the PMOS said yes inasmuch as Mr Byers had gone to the House to set out the reason why he had said that Martin Sixsmith had agreed to resign. Questioned as to whether Mr Byers had told the truth or deliberately misled the House, the PMOS said that of course did not believe that Mr Byers had deliberately misled the House.
Put to him that no one was suggesting that Mr Byers had ‘deliberately’ misled the House but that he had misled the House and should put the record straight to MPs, the PMOS reiterated that what had been said at the time had been said in good faith, based on incorrect understandings of discussions which had been held in the Department on Friday 15 February. Yesterday’s statement underlined that fact. As far as we were concerned, that drew the matter to a close. Questioned as to whether there had been any discussions concerning the possibility of a further Statement by Mr Byers to the House, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware.
Asked if would accept that Mr Byers had ‘inadvertently’ misled the House, the PMOS said he wasn’t saying that either. There had been no deliberate intention to mislead. There had been issues in relation to false understandings of conversations which had been had. Pressed again as to whether he believed that Mr Byers had ‘inadvertently’ misled the House, the PMOS said that given the difficulties of this subject based on the discussions which had taken place between the Department and Mr Sixsmith and the subsequent incorrect understandings, the answer was no.
Asked if he believed that Mr Byers should make a further Statement to the Commons, the PMOS underlined that yesterday’s statement from DTLR did not tell us anything we did not already know. Put to him that he had admitted Mr Byers had misled the House and that therefore he should make another Statement, the PMOS said he had not. He was simply making the point that Mr Byers had stood before the Commons to set out the background to what he had said on Friday the 15th. Put to him that what he had said on the 26th was wrong, the PMOS said it was transparent at the time that discussions were ongoing between the Department and Mr Sixsmith about the latter’s departure. That clearly indicated what the state of play had been.
Questioned as to why the Government was tearing up the long-held convention that a Minister who misled the House should apologise directly and put the record straight, the PMOS said that we were not tearing up anything. He repeated for the umpteenth time that a misunderstanding had happened in good faith, based on an incorrect understanding of discussions which had taken place on the 15th. Asked if we were content for the Hansard record to remain unchallenged and unchanged, the PMOS said that the Hansard record stood. He reiterated that he did not believe that what had been said yesterday materially affected it.
Asked what was so difficult about making a Statement apologising for misleading the House, the PMOS said he did not believe that Mr Byers had deliberately misled the House. He had gone to there to explain the basis on which he had said that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign. As a matter of law, there had been no enforceable agreement to resign. As both Mr Byers and Sir Richard Mottram had spelled out, we had been seeking the precise terms of Mr Sixsmith’s departure since 15 February.
Asked why the Leader of the House had apologised to the Commons shortly after Mr Byers’ Statement, the PMOS pointed out that Mr Cook’s apology referred to another element of the story, namely the existence - or non-existence - of an e-mail.
Questioned as to whether Mr Byers retained the full confidence of the Prime Minister and whether any of his ‘alleged’ offences to date would warrant removal from his post, the PMOS said that of course the Prime Minister had full confidence in Mr Byers. For all the ’squillions’ of words which had been written about this issue - and that was not to imply that it was not a legitimate subject for scrutiny - what was most important in relation to the DTLR were the policy issues for which Mr Byers had responsibility, most notably transport where he had made controversial decisions on Railtrack which the Prime Minister believed he had been right to take.
We were also working towards putting in place the PPP for the Tube, in addition to implementing the Ten-Year Transport Plan and getting the extra investment into our under-funded transport infrastructure. These were the issues which really mattered to the public.
Foxhunting
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister had been woken up this morning by the sound of hunting horns being blown this morning, the PMOS said that if he had been, he certainly hadn’t mentioned it.
Draft Communications Bill
Asked whether the Prime Minister or any Ministers had met Rupert Murdoch in the last two or three weeks, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister and his Ministers met newspaper Editors and media Proprietors from time to time, as you would expect. It was our long held practice not to brief on those contacts. That said, if he was being asked about the draft Communications Bill which Tessa Jowell had set out to the House yesterday, it was important to recognise that these were proprietor-neutral proposals. The Bill was about ensuring deregulation which could encourage investment, competition and growth.
In doing so, we would be lightening the regulatory burden and also looking to relax some of the laws in relation to media ownership. As Ms Jowell had pointed out to the House yesterday, we had been in the position where other European companies were allowed to own media in this country, but companies outside Europe were not. The proposals therefore aimed to open up the market to companies such as AOL Time Warner etc.
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister was satisfied that Rupert Murdoch could own Channel 5, the PMOS said he was not aware that anybody had put in a bid for Channel 5. He cautioned journalists against getting too ahead of themselves. We were opening the market place in the way he had already set out. Under the proposals, joint ownership of newspapers would be limited and restrictions had been put in place to protect ITV. Channel 5 was a separate issue. It was not a question of us having a view.
Adoption
Asked which way the Prime Minister would vote on the amendment to the Adoption Bill, the PMOS said that he would want to study the amendment carefully, as you would expect. As journalists were well aware, the Prime Minister had taken a personal interest in the issue of adoption, particularly in the last Parliament when we had brought forward the adoption legislation we now had - the purpose of which had been to ensure that more children could be adopted.
At the moment, the position was that individuals could adopt, but couples could not in certain circumstances. The amendment was about widening the circle of children who could be adopted, although of course the interests of the child would always come first. Currently, there was a very large number of children who were in care and could benefit from adoption. The amendment was about taking that forward. There would be a free vote and it would be for individuals to make their own judgements. We would indicate the Prime Minister’s personal view nearer the time. However, no one should be in any doubt about his personal commitment to the whole issue.
Asked if the Prime Minister had made up his mind, the PMOS pointed out that the amendment had only just been tabled and he would obviously want to look at it carefully. The Prime Minister was approaching this issue from the standpoint that this was all about ensuring that more children could be adopted. In that way, they would be given a better start in life than would otherwise be the case if they were in care.
Asked whether it was in the best interests of a child to be adopted by a gay couple given the possibility he or she might be subjected to teasing at school, the PMOS said that there were an awfully large number of children who were currently in care and it could be argued equally that their lives were much poorer as a result. This issue was being given a free vote. During that process, the House would put forward arguments and ultimately make the final decision.
Put to him that the point had been raised in a Radio 5 phone-in this morning by someone who had been teased at school because he had been adopted by a gay couple, the PMOS said that the position at present was that single people could adopt, regardless of social orientation. Married couples could only adopt jointly. In terms of unmarried couples, it was up to one partner to adopt and the other to obtain responsibility by applying for a Residence Order.
We acknowledged that there were anomalies which needed to be addressed. Clearly these issues, and others, would be aired and points of view would be expressed during the passage of the Bill. In the end, however, there would be a free vote and it would be up to individual MPs to make their own judgements.
delicious
digg
facebook
