Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Iraq Commemoration, Clare Short, Reshuffle, Rail Fares and Ken Livingstone.
Iraq Commemoration
Responding to recent reports, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that given the military campaign was over, the Government was now deciding how best to mark the extraordinary bravery, professionalism and sacrifice of our armed forces. The Prime Minister believed that this decision should be taken by the military for the military. Downing Street had therefore asked the MoD to advise on the best form of recognition. Obviously the MoD would consult other parts of the Government and Buckingham Palace. However, particular attention would be paid to the views of those parts of the services directly involved in the campaign and also to the families of those who had died. The MoD was actively considering a service of thanksgiving involving the Royal Family, the Government, the military and the families of those who had lost their lives, in addition to a special Honours List.
Asked if a military parade had been ruled out, the PMOS said that he wouldn’t expect a Falklands-style parade to take place. This was about honouring those who had participated in the campaign - and in particular those who had fought and died. How that should be done was best left to the military, who had yet to make a final decision. It went without saying that everyone would want the tone of any event to be appropriate and respectful, which was why the MoD was actively considering a service of thanksgiving. Put to him that the military appeared to have signalled a desire for some sort of military parade, the PMOS said that discussions were ongoing about this issue. The Prime Minister believed that the military should take the decision because he felt they were the best judges regarding these matters. As things stood, however, the MoD was actively considering a service of thanksgiving and a special Honours List. Obviously other views would be listened to carefully, but he repeated we were unlikely to see a Falklands-style parade. Asked when the event would take place, the PMOS pointed out that many of our armed forces were still stationed in the Gulf, so at this stage it was unlikely the event would take place until the autumn at the earliest.
Asked to explain the point of having discussions when we already seemed to be ruling out the possibility of a military parade, the PMOS said that he was trying to be as helpful as he could in indicating where the centre of gravity currently lay. Asked if the MoD was looking at a ’shortlist’ of ideas, the PMOS said that the MoD had already indicated that they were considering holding a service of thanksgiving. Asked if there was any precedent in terms of the Government asking the military for advice, the PMOS said he did not know how decisions like this had been made in the past. He was speaking on behalf of the current Prime Minister and was explaining how we were approaching this matter. Put to him that the military might decide that it actually wanted to hold a parade, the PMOS said that we would await the outcome of the discussions. Drawing journalists’ attention to the views of the former Chief-of-the-Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Mike Boyce, in recent interviews on this matter, he added that it went without saying that the MoD would take appropriate soundings. Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with Sir Mike Boyce’s view that a parade might appear insensitive towards the Iraqi people, the PMOS said everyone wanted to ensure that the tone of the event was appropriate and respectful, while at the same time marking the bravery and professionalism of our forces, particularly those who had died in combat.
Asked if the Prime Minister would like the MoD to consult Church leaders like the Archbishop of Canterbury, as well as Muslim leaders, the PMOS said that this issue was for the MoD and the military to take forward. No doubt they would take soundings from a wide a range of constituencies. In terms of the Archbishop and some of the recent coverage on this issue, the PMOS referred journalists to the words of his spokesman yesterday who had said, "He (the Archbishop) is fully supportive of homecoming members of the armed forces being honoured and would wish, if invited, to play his part. These are early days. The Archbishop has had no conversation with, or expressed any views to, the Government about what form this might take.
Clare Short
Questioned as to whether Clare Short supported the Government’s policy on foundation hospitals, the PMOS said that Ms Short had explained the reason why she hadn’t voted on Wednesday night. As she had said, she had got the time wrong, which indicated that she had been intending to vote. Foundation hospitals was an agreed and settled policy which was supported by the Government as a whole. The most important thing about what had happened on Wednesday was the fact that the second reading of the Bill had been carried and we were now pressing ahead with the policy of devolving power to those on the front line in the NHS. Pressed as to whether Ms Short supported the policy on foundation hospitals, the PMOS said that the very fact she had been intending to vote clearly answered the question. Put to him it was ‘interesting’ that both DfID and Downing Street were refusing to confirm whether Ms Short supported the policy or not, the PMOS said he thought he just had. This was a comparatively small ‘not many dead’ political story. Ms Short had given an explanation as to what had happened. We were moving on. Asked if the Prime Minister was happy with her explanation, the PMOS said that it wasn’t a question of being ‘happy’ or ‘unhappy’. She had said she got the time wrong for the vote. It happened. If a member of the Cabinet gave an explanation, then obviously it was accepted. He repeated that the most important thing about Wednesday was the fact that the second reading of the Bill had been carried. Asked if the Prime Minister was ‘relaxed’ about Ms Short’s explanation, the PMOS said that what had happened was one of those things. Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister had ordered an inquiry, the PMOS pointed out that Ms Short had already provided an explanation, so he would not encourage journalists down that route.
Asked if Ms Short retained the full confidence of the Prime Minister, the PMOS observed that she would not be in the Cabinet were that not to be the case. Asked again about her support for the policy and our view on how likely it was she had got the time wrong given she must have about three private secretaries whose job it was to remind her, the PMOS repeated that she had explained she had got the time of the vote wrong and that she had been going to vote at 10pm. That was a pretty clear indication that she had intended to vote in favour of the Government policy. Asked if Ms Short had apologised to the Prime Minister, the PMOS said that they had not spoken.
Questioned as to whether Ms Short had also got the time of yesterday’s Cabinet wrong given the fact that she hadn’t turned up, the PMOS pointed out that she had informed Downing Street in advance that she would not be present Cabinet since she had Departmental business to attend to in the form of meetings with the Presidents of Rwanda and Uganda at Lancaster House. Put to him it was ’strange’ she had not delayed her engagements in order to attend Cabinet, the PMOS said it was not the first time - and no doubt would not be the last - that a Minister had not been able to attend Cabinet. Asked if he would agree that it was ‘odd’, the PMOS said that we were grown up about these things. The Prime Minister did not take a register at the beginning of Cabinet and then collect the milk money. Ms Short had had Departmental business which she had had to attend to. Her meetings with the two Presidents were clearly significant meetings and she had informed Downing Street in advance. In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that this story was old news. We were moving on.
Reshuffle
Asked if the Prime Minister would spend any time at the weekend thinking about the shape of the Home Office, the PMOS congratulated the journalist on his modest creativity in asking what was essentially a reshuffle question. He referred him to the rather tedious answers we tended to give in these situations.
Rail Fares
Asked for a reaction to reports that the caps on season tickets were to be abolished, the PMOS said that the formula for these rail fares - RPI minus 1 percent - had been set in 1996. This was due to expire at the end of the year and a decision regarding 2004 onwards would therefore have to be taken in the next couple of months. It was clear that rail costs had increased significantly in recent years. Given the fact that there were only two income streams for the railways, it was legitimate to ask questions about the division between the taxpayer and passengers. Regarding today’s story, it was worth pointing out that no decisions had been taken at this stage. It was a matter for Ministers to decide. There would be no ‘fares free-for-all’, contrary to this morning’s Times report. The majority of fares would continue to be regulated. We would look at the issue and reach decisions mindful of the fact that although we were seeing some gradual improvements in terms of railway performance, the standard of service was still not at the level at which either passengers or the Government would like it to be.
Ken Livingstone
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that the Mayor of London’s comments about President Bush yesterday had been helpful, the PMOS said that Mr Livingstone’s comments were a matter for him, not for us.
delicious
digg
facebook
