Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Cabinet, Foreign Issues, Afghanistan, Potters Bar, Meetings, Europe, Euro, PM Interviews, Adoption, EU-Latin America Summit and ASBOs.
Cabinet
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister had chaired Cabinet this morning.
Foreign Issues
The PMOS said that Jack Straw had updated Cabinet on the overnight results of the Dutch Election. He had also talked about the latest Russia/NATO developments and the end of the Cold War, as well as Nepal and India and Pakistan.
Afghanistan
The PMOS said that Geoff Hoon had updated Ministers on the latest medical condition of those who had been evacuated from Bagram. He had also previewed his Statement on operations in Afghanistan which he was due to present to the House this afternoon. He had underlined that people should not judge the campaign in Afghanistan by the number of body bags. It was important to maintain pressure on Al Qaida in every way we could.
Asked if we had diagnosed the illness from which a number of medical staff at Bagram were suffering, the PMOS said not at this stage. Mr Hoon had told Cabinet that it was believed they were suffering from some sort of virus. While there had been no increase in the number of personnel affected, six out of the eighteen were currently on their way back to the UK. This was in addition to the one already here and the one sent to Germany for treatment. Obviously we would do whatever we could to help them get better.
Asked how ill they were, the PMOS said that no one was underestimating the seriousness of the illness. He referred journalists to the MoD for an update on the state of their health.
Asked if the Prime Minister would agree with Lewis Moonie’s suggestion that anything that reduced the total number of weapons dumps in Afghanistan was probably a good idea, the PMOS pointed out that one of the reasons the Marines were in Afghanistan was to reduce the number of weapons there.
Potters Bar
The PMOS said that Stephen Byers had updated Ministers on the situation post-Potters Bar. He said the Government did not believe that Potters Bar showed a generic problem in the industry, although obviously we were determined to learn any lessons that we needed to learn. Mr Byers had also paid tribute to the way the industry had responded to what had happened - in particular how the various elements had worked together without resorting to playing the blame game.
The Prime Minister had supported Mr Byers’ assessment and had underlined that the appointment of people such as John Armitt and Richard Bowker had given a new coherent direction to the industry.
Meetings
The PMOS said that the Prime Minister would be meeting Giuliano Amato, the Vice President of the Future of Europe Convention, at midday today at which they would discuss the Future of Europe debate. This afternoon, he would see Edmund Stoiber, the German CDU leader. Their discussions were expected to focus on Anglo-German and European issues.
Following that, the Prime Minister would meet Peter Medgyessy, the Hungarian Prime Minister-designate. Their talks were expected to centre on the EU and NATO. Asked whether the issue of the Dutch elections would be raised during any of these meetings taking place today, the PMOS said he would expect so.
Europe
Asked whether the Prime Minister would state his support for a President of the European Council when he met Mr Amato today, the PMOS said that we saw merit in increasing the democratic legitimacy of the leadership of the EU. However, this was an issue which would be debated by the EU’s member states. Put to him that Peter Hain was actively backing the idea, as reported in today’s FT, the PMOS repeated that we believed there was merit in increasing the democratic legitimacy.
However, we recognised that it was a matter for debate. Pressed as to whether we were backing the proposal or not, the PMOS said that in principle, we saw merit in moving down that road. However, Britain was only one member of the EU. We recognised that other members states would have different views, which was why the issue needed to be discussed.
Asked why we would back a proposal which would reduce national sovereignty, the PMOS said that as he understood it, the idea was that the head of the European Council would be elected by the European Council. That, in turn, would give extra legitimacy inasmuch as it would provide a straightforward democratic link between voters in individual national states and the EU by way of their national governments. That said, it was important to recognise that these were matters for debate. Precise details had not yet been worked through.
Asked whether this idea was a ’staging post’ en route to what would eventually be a directly elected President of the European Council, the PMOS cautioned journalists against getting too far ahead of themselves. While we saw merit in the idea, we had to accept that we were just one EU member state amongst many and that the issue had to be discussed properly. Asked to explain how the new post which was being touted would affect the current post of the President of the European Commission, the PMOS said he was not aware of any direct impact on the role of the President of the European Commission.
Asked whether a formal paper outlining the Government’s position had been drawn up regarding the issue of a new President of the European Council, the PMOS said that as we participated in the Future of Europe debate, we had to think about how we could improve the linkages and sense of accountability between the EU and the people in individual member states. As part of that, all sorts of ideas would be put forward and debated, as you would expect. The important point was to have the debate and not to try to pre-judge its outcome.
Asked whether the new President would have to be a currently serving Prime Minister or President of a European country and if so, how they could be expected to carry out both jobs properly, the PMOS said that those were precisely the sorts of issues which had to be addressed. People should not look at what was being proposed as a closed option. It wasn’t. All these issues were up for debate.
Asked again about the status of Britain’s proposal, the PMOS said that journalists should not presume that one particular idea had necessarily come from one specific country. A number of EU countries were thinking about the issue from their different perspectives. The idea that had been put forward had the support of other member states. In the end, however, it would be discussed in the overall forum of the Future of Europe Convention.
Pressed as to whether a formal paper on the issue had been drawn up, the PMOS said that the Future of Europe debate was an important issue. As such, there were all sorts of papers on the subject being circulated, as you would expect. Of course, that was not to indicate that this was the end of the debate. Self evidently it wasn’t. It was part of the realistic process which we were undertaking.
Asked how the new presidential post would impact on the work of the EU’s foreign policy adviser, the PMOS suggested that journalists were once again getting too far ahead of themselves. We saw merit in increasing accountability and linkages between national governments and national parliaments and the EU. However, the precise detail of how, when and if such a role might work was much further down the track.
Put to him that he appeared to be encouraging journalists to engage in ’second-hand journalism’ in light of his refusal to expand further on Peter Hain’s comment in an FT interview that Britain was actively backing the idea of a European Council President, the PMOS said that in looking at this premise from the other end of the telescope, it would seem that Mr Hain should be commended for his openness in talking about our developing thinking on the issue - the point being that that was exactly what it was - developing. The process had not been completed. The Lobby should know better than to expect the decision-making process to work towards its deadline rather than over a proper period of time.
Put to him that journalists only wanted him to explain the substance of Mr Hain’s comments given our oft-expressed desire to have an open debate on the future of Europe issue, the PMOS said that he had been talking about a developing idea and had provided a perfectly accurate assessment of where we were. He was simply urging journalists not to get too far ahead of themselves.
Asked whether Britain was proposing a permanent Presidency of the European Council, and if so whether he would agree that that would be a fundamental change to the way the Council of Ministers worked, the PMOS said that if the outcome of a debate within the EU would be the creation of such a figure, then of course the decision would have implications on the rotational way the Presidency was currently run.
Asked if that meant that a whole new Secretariat and other structures would have to be put in place, the PMOS pointed out that a Secretariat which supported the current rotational process already existed. The purpose of having a debate was to discuss the possibility of knock-on effects arising out of the ideas being put forward.
Asked to explain why President Chirac had been able to present his ideas in a formal position paper while Britain appeared to have been unable to do so, the PMOS explained that we were part of a developing consensus. The important thing was for Europe to debate these issues without being pushed into national boxes. It was necessary to take the time to debate these issues with our European counterparts - in privacy if necessary. We acknowledged that the proposals being put forward in the Future of Europe debate would have implications for other countries. That was why we believed that it was sometimes better to do so in private rather than through megaphone headlines.
Put to him that his attitude would not help to reverse the British public’s suspicion that Europe - and anything to do with Europe - was a ’secret garden’, the PMOS said he would disagree. The charge presupposed that we had worked out every last detail of the proposal we were putting forward. We hadn’t. This was a developing process which had not yet been completed.
Put to him that journalists were asking for clarification precisely as a result of the Government’s desire to connect with the people and have an open debate about the Future of Europe, the PMOS pointed out that Peter Hain had spoken about the idea in a perfectly open way. He acknowledged that journalists were pressing him for the Government’s ‘finite’ position on the issue. He was making the point that it was not realistic to expect the response they were looking for as we were in the middle of a developing process which he had no intention of pre-judging. He was not ‘ducking’ anything. He was giving the lobby an accurate reflection of what was going on in the EU.
Asked if the Prime Minister shared Peter Hain’s belief that we might need a longer-term Presidency and that a five-year term would be a good idea, the PMOS reiterated that we saw merit in the principle of making the head of the European Council accountable. If he was being asked whether the Prime Minister supported Mr Hain’s comments, the answer was of course he did. Questioned as to whether there were any other ideas being mooted, the PMOS said that a whole range of ideas would come and go throughout the Future of Europe debate. We believed that was natural and good.
Put to him that giving ’some clapped-out politician a fat salary and first-class air travel across Europe’ would not legitimise anything and that it would only make people vote for more ‘dingbat’ political parties, the PMOS said he had noted the opinion which had been expressed. The Government thought otherwise. We believed that someone who was elected by the heads of elected national governments would in fact lend legitimacy to the whole process. Asked when a decision would have to be taken, the PMOS said that the Future of Europe Convention was due to report in the middle of next year and the next IGC would begin in 2004.
Asked whether the Prime Minister would see himself as a potential candidate for President, the PMOS said he had been waiting for someone to ask that question. Journalists surely did not expect him to give a sensible answer.
Euro
Asked whether the Prime Minister had been surprised to wake up this morning to find that he had launched a summer-long campaign on the Euro in light of his Newsnight interview last night, the PMOS said yes. Invited to expand further on his reply, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister was constantly surprised at the interpretation put on his comments in relation to the Euro.
PM Interviews
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister regarded his ‘experiment in communication’ a success in light of this three Newsnight interviews, the PMOS said he did not think that giving interviews to television programmes was entirely a novel idea. Journalists would remember that the Prime Minister had done it once or twice before. Pressed as to whether we would consider the interviews a success, the PMOS said we believed that people had found them genuinely interesting to watch. We noted that Newsnight’s viewing figures had risen and we would be quite happy to help boost them further (although he would say that given the programme had employed him in a previous life).
Adoption
Asked whether the Prime Minister would be voting on the Adoption Bill, the PMOS said it would depend on when the vote took place. He would if he could. Asked how he would vote, the PMOS said that he would vote in favour of the amendment. Asked to explain the Prime Minister’s reasons for voting in favour, the PMOS said that, like the agencies - such as the NSPCC and Barnados - who supported the change, he believed that we should do everything we could to encourage people to apply to adopt children in order to get them out of care homes. Asked if he would agree that the Prime Minister’s view was coloured to some extent by his own parental emotions, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister remained strongly of the view that we should do everything we could to try to increase the number of people applying for adoption.
EU-Latin America Summit
Asked about the EU-Latin America Summit in Madrid which the Prime Minister would be attending tomorrow, the PMOS said that the Summit was an annual event. It was possible that as many as forty-eight different countries would be represented this year. The Prime Minister would be happy to meet the Latin American leaders he had met when visiting the region last summer.
ASBOs
Asked if the Prime Minister supported a judicial decision to name and shame a sixteen year old girl in Portsmouth who had been given an Anti-Social Behaviour Order for 125 convictions, the PMOS said that he was not aware of the case question and therefore could not comment on it.
delicious
digg
facebook
