Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Romola Christopherson, Public Services/PM Speech, Iraq, Higher Education White Paper/University Funding, Grammar Schools, Asylum/War on Terror, Finsbury Park Mosque and Euro.
Romola Christopherson
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that no doubt journalists would be saddened by the death of Romola Christopherson, the former Head of Information at the Department of Health. He said that she had been his first boss in the GICS and had been a source of great wisdom and humour. She would be much missed.
Public Services/PM Speech
Asked if he would agree that the fact the Prime Minister was making a speech on public services on Thursday, that he would be chairing a Political Cabinet on Friday and would be appearing on Frost on Sunday would suggest that he thought he needed to ‘relaunch’ domestic policy and get things back on track, the PMOS advised journalists not to grasp too hard for a headline that wasn’t there. All these things simply showed the Government going about its business as usual. He pointed out that Sir David Frost was interviewing all the Party leaders. It would also be unusual for a week to go by in which the Prime Minister did not make some sort of speech. Moreover, Friday’s Political Cabinet was nothing out of the ordinary. It met from time to time in a political capacity. Asked if he was implying that the Prime Minister did not believe things were not going wrong in our public services, the PMOS said no one was under any illusion that there were big challenges facing us in terms of public services. There were real issues which had to be addressed, such as higher education, for example, as Charles Clarke’s Statement later this week would show. David Blunkett had also set out some of the challenges facing us in relation to the fight against crime last week. But it was important to recognise that the Government was making progress in these areas. As the Prime Minister had said in the past, we would not pretend that everything was perfect. Equally, however, it was important not to say that everything was broke, because it wasn’t. He offered a more detailed briefing on public services if the journalists wished him to prove his point.
Iraq
Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned that he would be arriving for talks in Washington after President Bush had set out his platform on Iraq in his State of the Union Address, the PMOS said that we were working within a UN process. Last September, some people had predicted that we wouldn’t go down the UN route. Well, we had. A lot of effort had gone into building support for Resolution 1441, as the 15-0 result in the UN Security Council had demonstrated. Over the past two weeks, we had been emphasising the importance of Iraq’s co-operation with the weapons inspectors. Paragraph 4 of Resolution 1441 imposed an obligation on Saddam Hussein to co-operate actively. No one should underestimate the concerns being raised about this matter by Hans Blix and Mohammed El-Baradei. Those were concerns shared by the Prime Minister. The world had been waiting for over thirteen years for Saddam Hussein to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He still had the opportunity to co-operate with the weapons inspectors and disarm peacefully. These were important moments for Saddam and for Iraq. They needed to understand the seriousness of the situation. We were in a process. The Prime Minister would be meeting President Bush at the end of the month as part of it.
Asked if the Prime Minister had discussed the possibility of a further report to the Security Council in March after a further 60-day period, the PMOS said that it was important to take things one stage at a time. Hans Blix was due to present a report to the UN on 27 January. As we had underlined many times, this was not a deadline, but an important staging post. The option remained open for Dr Blix to report back to the Security Council at any time to register any concerns he had. It would then be up to the Security Council to assess his findings in respect of a material breach. The Prime Minister had underlined the importance he attached to the inspections process. Dr Blix was a serious figure doing an important job and people should let him get on and do it. We would await his conclusions on 27 January before getting into a discussion about the next timeline.
Asked if the Prime Minister really wanted to give the inspectors the time and space to do their job properly if he wasn’t willing to guarantee a second 60-day period, the PMOS said that we wanted the inspectors to have the opportunity to carry out their job. Equally, we wanted Saddam to understand the seriousness with which we viewed Dr Blix’s concerns regarding Iraq’s non-co-operation, as well as what had been uncovered in recent days. There were no arbitrary timescales. It was clear that the only message which registered with Saddam Hussein was that force would be used if he did not comply. We hoped that message focussed his mind in respect of compliance.
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that Saddam Hussein going into exile would be preferable to going to war, the PMOS said that the Foreign Secretary had stated the Government’s position on this issue this morning. This was all about disarming Saddam of his WMD. As we had underlined many times, he had to show that he had disarmed and answer UNMOVIC’s perfectly legitimate concerns, based in the main on the outstanding questions posed by their predecessors, UNSCOM, about his WMD capability. Alternatively, he would have to be disarmed. That could happen either through co-operating peacefully with the weapons inspectors or through the use of force. The choice was his. Pressed for the Government’s position on the possibility of exiling Saddam, the PMOS referred journalists to Jack Straw’s interview this morning in which he had said that if the choice was war or Saddam going into exile "I think most people would swallow hard and accept that it was…..a fair trade". Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with Mr Straw’s view, the PMOS pointed out that Jack Straw was a senior member of the Government and spoke on its behalf as Foreign Secretary. The answer was yes.
Asked if the British Government had been in contact with the US Administration about Saddam’s immunity, the PMOS said that the Foreign Secretary had set out his views regarding the exile of Saddam Hussein this morning. He had nothing further to add. It was important for people to focus on the core issue here, namely the disarmament of Saddam. It wasn’t helpful for people to rush ahead to write the next chapter when the current one had yet to be concluded. Asked if the Government believed that it would be easier to accomplish our goal of disarmament if Saddam wasn’t around, the PMOS said that the last thirteen years had taught us that Saddam Hussein and his regime was not serious about disarmament. We hoped that he would listen to what the international community, as well as Dr Blix, were saying. He still had time.
Asked if there was a specific date by which the weapons inspectors would have had to complete their work, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had underlined, there were no arbitrary timetables. We had not set any deadlines. There were, however, genuine concerns about the whole issue of non-co-operation. Under Resolution 1441, Iraq had an obligation to engage on substance as well as process. If Dr Blix was raising this as a concern, it was important for Saddam to heed it.
Asked to explain the process were Dr Blix to inform the UN Security Council that there had been a material breach of Resolution 1441, the PMOS said that if the inspectors found anything that caused them concern, it was up to them to report it directly to the Security Council. It would then be for the Security Council to discuss the findings and reach a judgement in respect of a material breach. At this stage, it would not be helpful to start hypothesising about the nature of any report from Dr Blix or the length of time of any subsequent conversation that might be conducted in the Security Council.
Higher Education White Paper/University Funding
Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned by all the briefings and counter-briefings taking place in advance of the publication of the Higher Education White Paper, the PMOS said that while reports of who said what about what or whom were washing in and out of the papers, it was important for people not to lose sight of the policy. The future of higher education funding was a huge issue which the Government was addressing. There were big challenges which we had to confront if we were to deliver the higher education system that this country needed. That included taking difficult decisions about funding and addressing the issue of access to ensure that more people from a wider variety of backgrounds were able to go to university. Matters as important as this would always generate policy discussions within Government, as was perfectly right and proper. In the end, however, what mattered was the policy itself - and that would be set out by Charles Clarke on Wednesday. Put to him that Cabinet Ministers had appeared to accuse the Chancellor yesterday of trying to destabilise the Prime Minister’s plans to reform higher education funding, the PMOS said that if he had to comment on every single bit of tittle tattle that appeared in the Sunday papers he wouldn’t have time to do anything else. Asked where we were in the policy-making process, the PMOS said that it was coming to a conclusion in advance of the publication on Wednesday.
In answer to questions about student debt, the PMOS took the opportunity to put the issue into context. He pointed out that the figure of £21,000 which had been reported was, as the DfES had pointed out yesterday, at the top end of fees that students would be expected to pay. It would not be the average debt. It was for students taking the top course at the top university and receiving no support from the state or their parents. Asked what the average debt would be, the PMOS pointed out that, even with differential fees being charged by some universities for some courses, the vast majority of costs would continue to be borne by the state. That meant that around three quarters of the cost of courses would continue to be met by the taxpayer. At the moment, average debt was around £10,000. We estimated that would rise to £12-15,000. The White Paper would also focus on the issue of access. It would include proposals for an ‘Access Regulator’. This Regulator would have teeth, which would mean that institutions would need to demonstrate that they were actively putting in place measures to encourage people from a wide variety of backgrounds.
Grammar Schools
Asked if the Prime Minister would be happy to see the end of grammar schools in the light of Charles Clarke’s comments at the weekend, the PMOS said that our position on grammar schools remained unchanged. It was for local people in local areas to ballot if they wished to do so. Put to him that Charles Clarke had declined to rule out a stepping up of the Government’s policy to abolish grammar schools, the PMOS said that any changes to the current arrangements would be as a result of ballots that had been held.
Asylum/War on Terror
Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned that many people appeared to think that the asylum system was in chaos and that it was an easy way for terrorists to get into the country, the PMOS said the Prime Minister recognised that there were big challenges facing us in relation to the asylum system in the UK. That was why we were introducing an end-to-end reform of the system by putting in place a whole raft of different measures. However, it was important for people to take care not to inflame the situation. Around 80,000 people sought asylum in this country every year. Fifteen foreign nationals had been held under the powers introduced in 2001. Given that around 90 million people travelled through our ports each year, it was simply not possible - or desirable - to turn Britain into a fortress as it would severely damage our economy. At the same time, it was important to recognise that terrorists, by definition, were devious people. Their job - such as it was - was to look at how they could enter countries in whatever way they could - and their first job was to conceal their identity. Stringent efforts were being made to counter this problem, such as the introduction of fingerprinting and security assessments which David Blunkett had highlighted in the House last week. The way to deal with terrorism was to counter it through intelligence-led policing work in co-operation with the security services both here and abroad. Many countries were facing the same problems that we had with asylum. It was a challenging and complex issue, which was why we had to be careful not to make an automatic link with terrorism.
Put to him that it was difficult not to make a connection given the number of arrests in recent days and the case of the person granted asylum despite being a member of the Taliban, the PMOS pointed out that we were talking about fifteen people out of the thousands who applied for asylum in the UK and the 90 million who travelled through our ports. The PMOS took the opportunity to explain the background to the specific case being referred to. He said that as he understood it, Jon Owen Jones MP had raised the case of a Taliban member seeking asylum here at the moment with the Home Secretary, who had said he would look at the issue urgently. The solicitor who had been involved in that case had subsequently come forward and said that as he understood it, two other people who were members of the Taliban had come into the country and had already been granted asylum. We had been given no names and were therefore unable to verify whether that was true or not. We were, of course, continuing to look into the matter, but it was difficult to do so without details. The Immigration Service was checking the claims as a matter of urgency, as you would expect. The PMOS reminded journalists that we had ended routine exceptional leave to remain for all Afghans. The number of Afghans granted asylum was very low because of the changes in circumstances there. As Ministers had said repeatedly, they should return to help rebuild their country. That said, it was important for people to remember that there were provisions within the ECHR to exclude from its protection war criminals or terrorists. Our problem at the moment was lack of detail, although we were continuing to investigate the claims that had been made, as you would expect.
Finsbury Park Mosque
Questioned as to whether the overnight raid of the Finsbury Park Mosque had been necessary, the PMOS said that the police had the full support of the Government in taking whatever action they felt was necessary in pursuing their investigations. We were dealing with a real and present terrorist threat in this country and the police were carrying out their work in the way they saw fit. It went without saying that they would not have entered the Mosque unless they had felt they had good reason to do so. They had underlined the sensitivity with which they had approached the religious areas of the building. Given the operation was part of an ongoing investigation, it would not be helpful to say much more about this issue. In a more general context, however, it was worth emphasising again that the war on terror was not about Islam. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in this county were law-abiding citizens and made a huge contribution to our society. The Islamic religion had been hijacked by a small group of fanatics who sought to distort it and twist it for their own perverted ends. It was also worth remembering that a number of the victims of September 11 had been Muslim.
Euro
Asked to comment on media reports that the Prime Minister was planning to delay the Euro referendum, the PMOS said that the position had not changed. A rigorous assessment against the five tests would be made, as we had made clear repeatedly. As the Chancellor had said, if the tests were passed we believed we could win a referendum - and win it decisively. Similarly, the Prime Minister had said, were that the case, we should have courage of our convictions and go for it. Both were essentially saying the same thing.
delicious
digg
facebook
