Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Gibraltar, Asylum and Immigration, Racism, Afghanistan/Brigadier Lane, Northern Ireland and Golden Jubilee Weekend.
Gibraltar
Asked where we were on Gibraltar in light of the Prime Minister’s meeting with Prime Minister Aznar of Spain today, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that today’s meeting was, in a sense, fortuitous inasmuch as Prime Minister Aznar was visiting the country to make a speech in Oxford this afternoon. He would be meeting the Prime Minister again on 18 June for his regular pre-Seville Summit bilateral. Where we were on Gibraltar was where we had always said we would be at this stage.
As we had signalled, we envisaged negotiations continuing until early summer. In reaching the stage we had reached, it was clear - and inevitable - that we were getting down to the more difficult issues. Negotiations went up and went down. The important point, however, was that they were continuing. Today was part of that process.
Asked whether the key point was the red line on the military base on the Rock, the PMOS said that everyone was aware that there were two difficult issues - the military base and the status of the final settlement. Given where we were in the process, however, it would not be helpful to pre-empt the discussions that were taking place.
Asked to clarify the Government’s ‘bottom line’ on the military base, the PMOS said we believed that the military establishment should remain under British control and that any settlement should be a final settlement. Put to him that the Spanish were ‘blowing’ the process ‘out of the water’ by saying that they did not envisage giving up their claim to sovereignty or sharing the military base, the PMOS said it was not his job to speak on behalf of the Spanish Government.
Nor was he going to get involved in ‘megaphone diplomacy’. Negotiations came and went. The important thing was to give the process the time and space to develop. As we had indicated, we would give it until early summer to see how far we had progressed.
Asked to explain the point of today’s meeting, the PMOS said that the two Prime Ministers were taking advantage of an opportunity that had presented itself. Prime Minister Aznar was visiting Britain anyway. The Prime Minister wanted to use the occasion to meet up and talk to him about Gibraltar, as well as the lead-up to the Seville Summit, in which we wanted to see real progress made on European Council reform and get the last lap of the enlargement process under way. They would also want to discuss other important issues.
The Prime Minister had written to the Spanish Prime Minister last week in his capacity as EU President expressing his concern that the asylum action plan agreed by EU leaders at Tampere in Finland in October 1999 was in danger of falling behind. He believed that Seville was an opportunity to renew momentum on this matter by focussing in particular on three issues.
First, we wanted to toughen up EU borders by drawing up initiatives similar to the UK-Italian initiative in the Balkans which had put experts into regional areas to achieve real results. Secondly, we wanted to benchmark the performance of third countries in terms of taking returnees, and if necessary use EU levers - economic or financial - to encourage them to do so. Thirdly, we wanted to help those EU countries on the ‘frontline’.
Asked if he would agree that decisions on the key issues would in the end have to be made by the two Prime Ministers, the PMOS said yes. However, the fact that the Foreign Secretary and his Spanish counterpart had carried out very valuable work on this issue should not be overlooked. Today should be viewed more as an interim staging post rather than a ‘make-or-break’ day. No doubt further work would follow on from today’s meeting - and that would be taken forward by Mr Straw and Mr Pique.
Asylum and Immigration
Asked to explain how European financial and economic measures would help the issue of asylum and immigration, the PMOS pointed out that the EU helped many countries beyond its borders in a variety of ways. It was therefore right to expect those countries to help the EU implement its own policies - one of which was the achievement of a managed migration process.
Asked why we were focussing on third countries when the problem of asylum was on our doorstep, the PMOS said that of course the Prime Minister believed that we had to deal with issues such as Sangatte and Frethun. However, it was important to understand that those were symptoms of a failure to deal with the source of the problem further back down the line, which was something we recognised and were determined to address.
Asked why we were looking at sending asylum seekers back to their country of origin when they were seeking asylum precisely because they believed they were in danger, the PMOS said that it was important to distinguish between those who were seeking genuine protection and those who were in fact economic migrants. The measures we were putting in place would also help to recognise any skills which could be put to good use in countries such as the UK. The point was to make sure the problems were sorted out at an earlier stage rather than wait and then have to deal with them at Sangatte for example.
Put to him that this process appeared to follow the logic of the medieval ducking stool by which a woman suspected of being a witch was only found to be innocent of the charge if she drowned, the PMOS said that he would, politely, disagree with the parallel. As the UK-Italian initiative in the Balkans had demonstrated, the reality was much more prosaic. We had put in place a proper process to sort out those who had genuine grounds for seeking asylum and those who did not. In the Balkans, the term used for such people was ‘unaccounted arrivals’. As a result of the initiative, the percentage of unaccounted arrivals coming into Sarajevo had dropped by 90%.
Asked if he would accept reports which suggested that tens of thousands of asylum seekers had disappeared in the UK, the PMOS said the Home Office did not accept those figures. This was because it was not possible to arrive at a figure for the number of people still in the country by simply subtracting the number of refusals and removals from the number of applications.
Asked to explain why it was not possible to do so, the PMOS said it was complicated. He pointed out that applicants sometimes left the country without informing the authorities. They also sometimes switched to other categories, for example if they got married. In addition, it occasionally took longer than a year to work through the application process, particularly if it went to appeal. That meant that those whose applications had been refused in one year might not necessarily have applied for asylum within the last twelve months.
Asked repeatedly if the Home Office had an estimate for the number of asylum seekers who had absconded, the PMOS said that it was not possible to calculate a precise figure as a result of the factors he had already outlined. Asked if that meant the Home Office ‘did not have a clue’, the PMOS repeated that it was not possible to work out the precise number.
Asked if he had a ballpark figure, the PMOS said no. Put to him that it was hard to believe there was no figure, the PMOS said that we accepted we had more work to do regarding the removal of failed applicants. However, it was important to recognise that we were removing more people per quarter than before and would eventually end up removing more people per month.
Asked if there was any reason why asylum claims from Afghans should continue to be ‘entertained’ if things were ’settling down’ in the region, the PMOS pointed out that while it was true that progress had been made in Afghanistan, it was clear that the job had not yet been completed there. Asked if there was any justification for Afghans to continue to seek asylum in the UK, the PMOS said that applications would be considered on a case by case basis, as you would expect.
Asked to name and shame those countries who were dragging their feet on the 1999 Tampere agreement, the PMOS said that it was not for him to identify individual countries. That said, as the EU Heads of Government had recognised at Laeken last December, it was clear that progress had not been made as quickly as we would have liked.
Our view was that we needed to regain momentum on the asylum issue at Seville. Recent events in Europe would perhaps suggest that other countries shared the Prime Minister’s view that the issue needed to be addressed - and to do so in a managed, controlled way.
Put to him that we appeared to be pursuing a contradictory agenda - on the one hand we were pushing for stronger immigration controls, while on the other we were enthusiastically backing EU expansion to countries such as Romania and Poland which would produce further immigration problems, the PMOS said that the future of the EU post-enlargement was about increasing prosperity in such countries and giving them a more stable and prosperous economic future.
That in itself, would reduce the pressure for migration. Put to him that migration was likely to increase in the short term, the PMOS said we believed that recognition of a better economic future as a result of EU membership would help to reduce the pressure.
Racism
Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned that an online racism poll had found that the majority of people in this country still believed that Britain was inherently racist and that immigration over the past few years had made things worse, the PMOS said he was not aware if the Prime Minister had seen the poll in question. However, his views on racism were well known. In his opinion, issues relating to immigration had to be dealt with seriously to avoid building up any pressures which could be used by extremists of any kind.
Afghanistan/Brigadier Lane
Asked about the Prime Minister’s thoughts on the sacking of a Commanding Officer in the middle of an overseas military operation, the PMOS said that this was a very misleading question. Factually, this story had been wrong from beginning to end. The MoD had always said that they would share the post between two Commanders and had announced this intention on 6 February via a press notice to the Times, Telegraph and Independent. Brigadier Lane’s tour of duty had been due to end on 30 April but it had been extended due to the current operation.
Thus, it had been extended rather than shortened. That the post was being shared was an administrative decision taken by the Royal Marines at the end of last year to increase the number with relevant experience who might subsequently be considered for the post of Commander General of the Royal Marines.
Asked why Geoff Hoon had not been told this information before appearing on the Frost Programme yesterday, the PMOS said that the information made no difference to what Mr Hoon had said. He had been responding to claims that the MoD had thought in some way that Brigadier Lane was not doing a good job. Mr Hoon had been underlining that that absolutely was not the case.
Asked if he was saying that Mr Hoon had known that Brigadier Lane was going to be moved, the PMOS said that Mr Hoon had not needed to know this information in order to pay tribute to the work which the Brigadier was doing. As he had said, "I have every confidence in Brigadier Lane. He’s doing a tremendous job in very difficult circumstances, and he deserves and gets our complete support". End of story.
Put to him that the Defence Secretary had been put in a ‘ludicrous position’ if it had been felt that he had not needed to know the information, the PMOS said he would disagree. Questioned as to whether Mr Hoon had been aware of the information, the PMOS said he didn’t know and told journalists to check with the MoD. Mr Hoon’s comments about Brigadier Lane had been made in response to a question asking whether he had full confidence in Brigadier Lane. Making criticisms behind the back of a Commanding Officer who was leading our soldiers in the field was not something we did.
Asked the last time a Commanding Officer had had his job ‘taken from under him’ for administrative reasons, the PMOS underlined that Brigadier Lane’s job had not been taken from under him. The MoD had issued a routine Senior Officer press notice on 6 February announcing that Brigadier Dutton would join 3 Commando Brigade on 30 April.
Pressed as to the last time a Commanding Officer had had his job taken from under him for administrative reasons, the PMOS said that the question was implying that the job had changed while the Brigadier was in the field. Quite clearly that was not the case. Put to him that the job was changing while the Brigadier was in the field, the PMOS said that it had been changed in advance to allow him to go for a more senior post.
Questioned again as to the last time a Commanding Officer had had his job taken from under him for administrative reasons, the PMOS said the job was being changed for administrative reasons as had been set out on 6 February, not as a result of anything that had happened subsequent to that. The Prime Minister, Secretary of State and Government all believed that Brigadier Lane had done an outstanding job.
Put to him repeatedly that the Defence Secretary had been made to look ridiculous by today’s newspapers which has reported that the Brigadier had been given the ‘heave-ho’, the PMOS underlined that the Brigadier had not been given the heave-ho. This was a routine administrative decision which had been taken for legitimate reasons.
Put to him that Mr Hoon could have prevented himself looking foolish by mentioning this information in his interview yesterday, the PMOS said that the information would not have made not one iota of difference to the Defence Secretary’s reply to the question concerning Brigadier Lane’s performance.
Asked if this ‘routine administrative decision’ had any precedent, the PMOS said that this kind of decision was part of good management inasmuch as it allowed for a wider pool of candidates to go for a more senior job. Put to him that leaving the Defence Secretary ‘completely off-side’ in his interview was not good management, the PMOS said that the Defence Secretary had not been left off-side. Mr Hoon had been asked for his opinion on Brigadier Lane’s performance - to which he had replied that he was an outstanding leader.
Asked why this information had not been made public sooner, the PMOS repeated that a press notice had been put out in February and sent to the Times, Telegraph and Independent. Asked by the Sun whether those newspapers had reported it, the PMOS said he didn’t know off hand. Besides, he wasn’t responsible for the news values of any of the three papers. Had the Sun received a copy of the press notice, no doubt it would have been front page news.
Northern Ireland
Asked whether the Prime Minister had spoken to Bertie Ahern, the PMOS said that he had sent a personal message of congratulations today. Asked if the Prime Minister had been struck by the fact that Mr Ahern was insisting that there must be total decommissioning of IRA weaponry South of the Border whereas we appeared to be much more lenient about the issue North of the Border, the PMOS said he would disagree with the premise of the question.
Mr Ahern and the Prime Minister shared the view that we had to implement the Good Friday Agreement. That meant an end to all forms of paramilitarism. As the Prime Minister had said during his recent visit to Northern Ireland, we would not turn a blind eye to any kind of paramilitary activity. It was a matter of getting there by degree, as we were doing. However, it was clear that we needed to see further progress. As such, he welcomed Mr Ahern’s comments.
Golden Jubilee Weekend
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister would be taking a holiday over the Golden Jubilee weekend, the PMOS said he would continue to work.
delicious
digg
facebook
