Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: G8, BAE and Big Brother Racism
G8
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) gave journalists an update from the Prime Minister’s meetings this morning. The basic position was this: we came to the G8 Summit looking essentially for four things. The first was acceptance and agreement that there had to be a global agreement on climate change. Secondly, that part of that agreement should be to work towards a global goal. Thirdly, that there could be and should be other events, such as the US meetings in the autumn. We looked forward to that, as the President said, by the end of 2008. It should be within the UN process. Finally, we should go as far as we could to define what substantial reduction in emissions should be. We believed that we had made significant progress on the first three items, and we were still making progress on the fourth. The PMOS added that we had made further progress at the meeting this morning, but further discussions would continue between officials and sherpas, but we believed that progress was being made.
On Africa, the important thing was that we continued the progress that was started at Gleneagles. In other words, that we re-confirmed the commitments made at Gleneagles. However, we also had to go further in the process of implementing how those commitments were put into action, particularly on AIDS and education. We had already seen the US doubling the amount of money it was going to spend on aid in Africa, and we had also seen the Germans announce a substantial increase in their aid for Africa too. We had also announced our increases in education spending in Africa. Therefore, there was progress, but we wanted to see more progress reflected in the communiqué, but that would probably come tomorrow, rather than today. The important point today was to push as far as we could in terms of climate change and tying down the language on climate change.
Asked about a Financial Times story that said that aid to Africa was going to be halved, the PMOS said that that was a misunderstanding of text. The important thing to note was that we were increasing aid to Africa, and we would continue to do so.
Asked how would progress be measured in terms of climate change, the PMOS replied people should remember where we started from. Before last week, we did not have a commitment from the US that they wanted to see a global agreement; we now did. We did not have a commitment from them in terms of a global limit; we now did. We needed to tie down, and we were tying down, the process that they were holding in the autumn would be within the UN, and now we needed to define what everybody meant by substantial reduction. The important thing was, as the President had said this morning, was that this also included India and China, as well as the US. That was why we had a UN process, and also why this was not the forum where people got final agreements in terms of defining what a reduction was. What this summit could do was give a very strong indication of where the consensus was, and that was what we were working to define. The PMOS said that we had to see where we got to this afternoon, but that was very much a work in progress.
Put that the PMOS had said that this was not the forum to agree a goal, but the Prime Minister in various recent interviews said that he hoped that there would be a goal, the PMOS said that he wanted to differentiate. What could come out of a summit would take us much further forward in terms of results. The substance was that people could commit to a global agreement and a global limit and a UN process, as well as a definition of what substantial reduction meant. People could not on the one hand criticise the US for having a process in the autumn because it was not part of the UN, but on the other hand, say that the G8 should do something outside of the UN. This was a UN process, and that was what we had to work within, but what the G8 could do was take this substantially further. In effect, this already had, because it had already got agreement for a global agreement on a global limit, and we thought it was on the UN process. The PMOS said that we had to wait and see where we got to on what a substantial reduction meant.
Put that the original draft communiqué from the Germans had a specific number on it, and that President Bush had just said that we were not having it, the PMOS replied that he did not give running commentaries on negotiations, as people knew. It was the overall substance that mattered. What people should judge this summit by was: had the agenda of climate change moved significantly as a result of this summit? The PMOS said that he believed that it was already possible to say that it had, and we hoped that it might move a bit further, but we would need to see where we were by the end of the afternoon.
Put that surely it was the job of the summit to force people down to the detail and given that the Americans have already moved their position, the PMOS said that he thought that was moving the goalposts. This summit acted as a focal point, and the point of the G8 meetings was to act as a focal point which forced issues to decision. Last week we saw that in terms of Africa, and in terms of both the US and Germany. We also saw it in terms of President Bush’s speech in advance of the G8 which moved us forward on a global agreement, and moved us forward in accepting a global limit. The question was then raised: was that outside of the UN process? We believed that we would be able to provide reassurance that it was not outside the UN process. The question then was raised: what did substantial reduction mean? We hope to be in a position to say more about that later on today, but that is progress by anybody’s standards.
Asked if there was any possibility of there being a number in the final communiqué on climate change, the PMOS replied that the answer was that negotiations were still continuing and it would be stupid to get involved in the process of saying where we were going to end up. Let’s see where we ended up.
Put that that sounded like yes, it was possible, is that right, the PMOS said no, it sounded like he was not going to give a running commentary on negotiations.
Asked about donor fatigue in terms of Africa, the PMOS said that people should first of all recognise the real progress there had been in the last two years. There had been real increases in global aid, and even if debt relief was taken out, there was still £2.5 billion more to Africa; 22 countries have benefited from 100% debt relief, 18 of them in Africa, as well as a tenfold increase in people on ARVs (anti-retrovirals) in Africa now totalling more than 1 million. In 2005, that saved a quarter of a million lives. 26 countries signed up to the extractive industries transparency initiative that was aimed at tackling corruption, and we had 15,000 African troops undergoing peacekeeping training. We wanted at this summit to reaffirm our commitments to Africa and aid, to reaffirm the commitment to as near as possible universal access to AIDS treatment, care and prevention. We wanted to agree new action which tackled the so-called feminisation of HIV which as we saw in South Africa, which was a particular problem, and we also wanted to see new commitments to the Global Fund. Now we have, put £8.5 billion over 10 years towards education, and we wanted to see that developed as well. In terms of the concern, that was for others to speak about; in terms of the action, we believed that people are still moving forward. Now hopefully, tomorrow rather than today we will see the concrete result of that.
Asked what the Prime Minister’s reflections were on his last bilateral with President Bush, the PMOS replied that as the Prime Minister had said afterwards, he had been so focused on trying to move forward the G8 agenda that he hadn’t really had time to reflect on that. That had been the case in terms of the trip to the United States that we made, and when we then went to Iraq afterwards, and the trip to Africa last week and the G8. These were, and the PMOS said that he knew it might be difficult for people to accept this, but these were to those who travelled around with the Prime Minister, normal working days, and we were getting on with the job. We were very clear about what it is we want to achieve, the Prime Minister was very clear what it was he wanted to achieve, but it was about getting on with the job and trying to get to the point that we wanted to get to on each of these matters. That was where his focus was. There may come a time for looking back but this wasn’t it. Rather, this was the time for looking forward, and this was the time for doing what we set out to do and that would be his approach right up to the end.
Asked if we were pushing any particular British issues at the Foreign policy session, the PMOS replied that there would be issues on which we had an intimate involvement. Darfur was clearly one, Kosovo was clearly another, and these were the issues which we pushed in international fora wherever we are, particularly on Darfur. Whether they got on to other issues such as Iran, these tended to be fairly free flowing discussions, so people should wait and see.
For more info on the G8:
BAE
Put that the Panorama programme was alleging that they had evidence of commission being paid to a Saudi Prince after 2001 when it was illegal in the UK and what did we have to say to those charges, the PMOS replied that he was not going to comment on any charges. The PMOS referred journalists to what the Prime Minister had said this morning and also to what the Attorney General had said before. In the Attorney General’s view, a successful prosecution was unlikely and the Prime Minister had said that his strong view was that in terms of national security, it would not have been the right thing to do to pursue this prosecution. We had nothing further to say.
Asked if jobs really were a factor or not in the BAE decision, as the Prime Minister had initially suggested that they were, the PMOS disagreed and said that the Prime Minister’s formulation today was exactly the same as the one he had used before. Number one, the Attorney General had said that in his view, the prosecution was unlikely, and that two, there were national security matters which the Prime Minister was perfectly entitled to advise on. The PMOS said never mind that there were implications for jobs, it was a fact that there were implications for jobs, but it was not the reason why we reached the decision we did.
Asked to clarify that to do so would not have been legitimate, the PMOS replied that we had not said that the position was taken because of the impact of jobs. Rather, what we had said was that it was taken because of the judgement of the Attorney General on the likelihood of a successful prosecution and on national security implications. We had not said it was because of the effect of jobs, but it was a fact that there would be an effect on jobs.
Asked again about BAE, the PMOS replied that there might be questions that people wanted to put, but the fundamental answers remained the same. The Attorney General had looked at this case and decided that a successful prosecution was unlikely. The Prime Minister offered, as is his duty, his assessment of the threat to national security, and that was where a decision had to be made.
Asked if the Prime Minister or any senior Minister was prepared to make a further longer statement on the specific allegation of the money paid to Prince Bandar and if not, why not, the PMOS replied it was because these were matters which were considered by the Attorney General. The Prime Minister had spoken about given his reasons.
Big Brother Racism
Put that the Prime Minister was probably aware that events in Germany were being overshadowed by events in the Big Brother house where a contestant had been removed for making racist remarks, was the Prime Minister (a) disturbed this had happened again after the events of last year, and (b) did he support the producers of the show who had taken decisive action this time and had her kicked out. The PMOS said that that the Prime Minister was totally unaware of events in the Big Brother household, and he had no statement to make on it. The PMOS continued that what we said last time there was an incident on Big Brother, was that we totally deplored anything that could be perceived as racism. The PMOS also said that he was not going to comment in any way on this incident because he didn’t know the details, but that was the Government’s approach. The rest should be left to Channel 4.