Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Ehud Olmert, Constitutional Reform Bill, Zimbabwe/Cricket, Steve Moxon and Defence Spending.
Ehud Olmert
Asked about the Prime Minister’s meeting this afternoon with the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the Prime Minister had met with a number of key figures from the Middle East in recent days. However, the sequence of visitors to the UK should not necessarily be seen as co-ordinated or presage some new initiative. Rather, the meetings underlined a desire on all sides to try to reinvigorate the peace process. That was the context of today’s meeting.
Constitutional Reform Bill
Asked if there had been any movement on the Constitutional Reform Bill following the defeat in the Lords on Monday evening, the PMOS said that discussions were continuing through the usual channels, and within Government, in terms of how we should move forward. What had happened on Monday was almost unprecedented. The Hare Coursing Bill in 1975 was the last time such a situation had occurred. Since the discussions that were going on had yet to conclude, he was unable to give journalists the clarity they wanted at this stage. Asked to comment on some of the options suggested in today’s papers, the PMOS said that he had read a number of different scenarios in this morning’s press. However, as things stood, he was unable to state unequivocally what was going happen. Asked if the Government had abandoned the idea of re-introducing the Bill immediately into the Commons, the PMOS said that there were a number of different ways you could approach this issue. The Government’s overriding concern was to get the Bill on the statute book. Following the events of Monday night, we had to consider carefully what was likely to be the best way to achieve that.
Zimbabwe/Cricket
Asked if any Government representative was due to meet the England Cricket Board (ECB), the PMOS said that the Foreign Office and the DCMS had been having regular and constructive meetings with the ECB. Those talks would continue. We understood the difficult position in which the ECB found themselves regarding the tour. However, the Government did not possess any legal powers to stop it going ahead. It was a decision for the ECB to make. Jack Straw had written to them on 22 January and had said, "I draw your attention to the appalling human rights situation in Zimbabwe and the resulting isolation of that country’s government by the international community. The situation in Zimbabwe is bleak and is deteriorating". He had also written that it was the Government’s view that the overall situation there was worse today than it had been during the cricket World Cup. He had also underlined that "the decision whether or not to tour, must be one for you and your colleagues in the England and Wales Cricket Board to make". That remained the Government’s position.
In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that the Government had given its advice, but had underlined consistently that it was up to the ECB to make the decision. Richard Caborn had answered a PQ last week in which he had stated specifically that the Government did not support the tour to Zimbabwe because of the deteriorating humanitarian situation there and our concerns about the regime. He had made clear, however, that it was ultimately up to the cricketing authorities to make the final decision. Put to him that the ECB appeared to be asking the Government to order them not to go and yet the Government was refusing to do so, the PMOS said that we would continue to talk with the ECB. They had said that they were reflecting on what had been said and that they might make a final decision in April. He repeated that the Government did not have the legal powers to ban the ECB from going to Zimbabwe. However, we had stated consistently that we did not support the tour. Put to him that Tim Lamb, the head of the ECB, had said that he wanted to hear stronger language from the Government about this issue, the PMOS said that our position on this matter was clear and on the record. We would continue to talk to the cricketing authorities, as we had been doing for some months. He drew journalists’ attention again to Jack Straw’s letter to the ECB on 22 January and Written Answers from Richard Caborn and Chris Mullin on this issue.
Steve Moxon
Asked if the Prime Minister had been made aware that Steve Moxon had written two ’strongly worded e-mails of an anti-Muslim nature’ to the BBC prior to saying in the Commons today that he had no intention of meeting him, the PMOS said that he did not intend to comment on the reported e-mails. If Mr Moxon’s employer was handling the issue, it was not unreasonable for the Prime Minister or Ministers to say that due process should be allowed to take its course. Asked if the Prime Minister had received a request from Mr Moxon to meet him, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware, other than the invitation extended to him at PMQs today. Asked if there were any circumstances in which he would meet him, the PMOS said that it was important to be clear what this issue was about. Some concerns had been raised by Mr Moxon and they had been taken seriously by the Government. Beverley Hughes had made a Statement to Parliament on Monday saying that there would be an investigation into the procedures used at Sheffield. That was ongoing. In those circumstances, it was appropriate for due process to continue both in terms of that investigation and the handling of any personnel issues. On the former, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) should be allowed to carry out its work. On the latter, most people would agree that it was right for personnel issues to be handled by the employers and not by Ministers.
Defence Spending
Asked to comment on the letter which Geoff Hoon had reportedly sent to the Prime Minister and Tom Baldwin at the Times, the PMOS repeated what he had said about the matter this morning. Put to him, jokingly, that there was a ‘prima facie’ case for a leak inquiry, the PMOS said that discussions would continue between Departments and the Treasury in the usual way.
delicious
digg
facebook
