Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Cabinet, Stephen Byers/Martin Sixsmith, Lobby, Sport/Crime and Middle East.
Cabinet
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister had chaired Cabinet this morning. In addition to a discussion on Parliamentary business, the Deputy Prime Minister had previewed his White Paper on regional governance and Jack Straw had updated Ministers on his visit to the US this week, focussing in particular on the serious situation in the Middle East and his discussions with Colin Powell on the subject.
Stephen Byers/Martin Sixsmith
Asked whether the issue of Stephen Byers and Martin Sixsmith had come up at Cabinet this morning, the PMOS said that Cabinet had not ended by the time he had left to attend the Lobby briefing. However, he could confirm that there had been no mention of the matter up until that point. Asked whether Mr Byers had attended Cabinet today and if he had participated in any of the discussions, the PMOS confirmed that Mr Byers had attended, but said that he had no intention of getting in to who had or had not contributed.
Asked to explain why Mr Byers was making a Statement to the Commons this afternoon, the PMOS said that he had dealt with the issue on Tuesday and his colleague had dealt with it yesterday, as had the Prime Minister at PMQs. It was clear that MPs wanted to hear from Mr Byers himself, and the Secretary of State was quite happy to oblige, hence his Statement to the House later today.
Asked whether the Prime Minister would remain on the bench to hear Mr Byers’ Statement given his intention to come to the House to listen to the Deputy Prime Minister’s Statement on regional governance, the PMOS said no because he had to fulfil a long-standing engagement. He was due to visit Rockingham Estate Play Association in Southwark together with Tessa Jowell.
Put to him that Southwark was only a ten-minute cab ride away and that the Prime Minister would be able to listen to Mr Byers’ Statement in the House and then depart for his engagement, the PMOS pointed out that the Prime Minister had other meetings scheduled for that time. All the necessary arrangements had been put in place some time ago and he would be keeping to them.
Questioned as to whether Mr Byers would maintain in his Statement that he had not misled the House, the PMOS said he would let the Secretary of State speak for himself. Both he and his colleague had made the position clear countless times during this week’s Lobby briefings, as had the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon at PMQs. Journalists should not expect any change in the position.
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that a Minister who misled the House in good faith need not come to the House to explain himself, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had set out his view yesterday regarding the particular circumstances of Mr Byers. The Secretary of State would set out his position later today. Journalists would just have to be a little more patient.
Asked if it remained the Government’s position that any Minister who misled Parliament - whether wittingly or unwittingly - must come to the House and explain why, the PMOS said that that position had not changed. However, the Prime Minister had set out his view yesterday that, in the context of Sir Richard Mottram’s statement on Monday 25 February, Mr Byers had not misled the House in his Statement on Tuesday 26 February.
Asked why Mr Byers was happier to give a Statement to MPs today when he appeared not to have been quite so happy to do so yesterday when the pressure had been just as strong, the PMOS said that the Speaker had made his decision yesterday. That was a matter for him. Yesterday, Mr Byers had been focussed on London Underground’s decision to go ahead with the PPP. It was clear that MPs had expressed a desire to hear from the Secretary of State himself, and he was happy to comply today.
Asked if that meant that Mr Byers would not be focussing on today’s regional governance White Paper, the PMOS said of course not. Mr Byers would be on the bench while the Deputy Prime Minister made his Statement and both would travel to the North of England later on.
Asked to confirm whether Sir Richard Mottram had informed Mr Byers before 25 February that Mr Sixsmith was disputing the announcement he had made on Friday 15 February that he had resigned, the PMOS said that everyone had been aware of Mr Sixsmith’s insistence that he had not resigned, not least because Mr Sixsmith’s assertion had appeared in the Sunday Times on the 24th. In his own statement on the 25th, Sir Richard Mottram had set out the sequence of events which had led to the incorrect understanding of conversations regarding the question of Mr Sixsmith’s resignation which had taken place on Friday the 15th.
Asked why the Secretary of State had not once referred to Mr Sixsmith’s disputation in his Statement of the 26th, the PMOS said that Mr Byers had set his Statement firmly in the context of Sir Richard Mottram’s statement of the day before. No doubt Mr Byers would deal with these issues in his Statement to the House this afternoon.
Asked to confirm that he was not in any sense attempting to lay the blame at Sir Richard’s door, the PMOS said that he was simply setting out the sequence of events which had led, in good faith, to an incorrect understanding, as everyone would accept. Put to him that the incorrect understanding had meant that people had indeed been misled, the PMOS said that the incorrect understanding related to what had been agreed at the original meeting between Martin Sixsmith and Sir Richard Mottram. It did not relate to what Mr Byers had said in the Commons.
Put to him that he appeared to be implying that the Secretary of State had misled the House because he had been misled by Sir Richard, the PMOS said he wasn’t implying anything of the sort. He was making the point that Mr Byers’ Statement had been set in the context of Sir Richard’s statement of the previous day.
Put to him that the misunderstanding of the meeting would still have resulted in Mr Byers misinforming the Commons, the PMOS said that it was important not to mix up the chronology of this affair. Mr Byers had explained to the House on the 26th how he had come to say what he had said on the 15th.
Asked again why Mr Byers was making a Statement to the House today if he had nothing to correct, the PMOS said that given MPs had expressed an interest in hearing what the Secretary of State had to say, he was quite happy to oblige. Put to him that the reason Mr Byers had agreed to stand before the House today was because the Speaker would have forced him to appear had he not, the PMOS said that he had no intention of trying to second-guess what the Speaker might or might not have done. In the end, it was important to recognise that Mr Byers was quite happy to make a Statement to Parliament.
Asked if it was fair to say that the DTLR’s statement this week was significant inasmuch as it had revealed new information not previously disclosed to the public or MPs, the PMOS said no. Asked to indicate when the Government had acknowledged previously that Martin Sixsmith had not resigned, the PMOS pointed to Sir Richard Mottram’s statement of the 25th in which he had clearly acknowledged that there had been an incorrect understanding of what had been agreed at his meeting with Martin Sixsmith.
Challenged that Sir Richard had not stated that he accepted that Mr Sixsmith had not resigned and that that was why this week’s statement was so crucial, the PMOS said that Sir Richard’s statement of the 25th has set out the sequence of events. He had said that he had met Mr Sixsmith on the 15th and had thought that he had given an agreement to resign. Subsequently, he had conveyed that impression to the Secretary of State. He had then had a further meeting with Mr Sixsmith during which Mr Sixsmith had said he disputed that interpretation of events. Clearly, there had been an acceptance that there was a dispute over what had been agreed.
Put to him that this week’s statement appeared to have resolved finally the question of whether Mr Sixsmith had resigned, the PMOS pointed to the last sentence of Sir Richard’s statement of the 25th in which he had indicated that he was quite willing to continue negotiations with Mr Sixsmith regarding the terms under which his employment contract would come to an end. That illustrated that the matter clearly had not been agreed at the time. Put to him that his argument did not stand up given the Secretary of State’s Statement the next day, the PMOS pointed out that Mr Byers had in fact referred to Sir Richard’s statement.
Questioned as to whether Mr Byers remained of the view that Martin Sixsmith had resigned, the PMOS said that the Secretary of State was making a Statement to the House this afternoon. Journalists would just have to wait. Asked whether the Prime Minister continued to believe that Mr Sixsmith had resigned, the PMOS said that the position regarding Martin Sixsmith had been set out on Tuesday in a statement agreed by both Mr Sixsmith and the Department. Put to him that what he was saying was different to the agreed statement, the PMOS said he would dispute that suggestion. The position had been set out in the agreed statement. That remained the position.
Asked again if he was saying that the Secretary of State was not going to the Commons this afternoon to set the record straight, the PMOS repeated that journalists should wait for Mr Byers’ Statement. The position set out during the week by both he and his colleague, in addition to the Prime Minister at PMQs yesterday, remained.
Asked if the Government really wanted to be remembered for an incorrect understanding ‘in good faith’ - in the same way that the previous Administration was remembered for being ‘economical with the truth’, the PMOS underlined that we all accepted that these were difficult issues. As Tuesday’s statement itself had acknowledged, this had been a period of uncertainty and dispute which had brought personal pressure on those concerned and their families. No doubt this was not the first time that an agreement believed to have been reached at a meeting had turned out not to have been an agreement at all. That was one of the realities of employment law and employment cases such as this.
In our view, however, the public was more concerned as to whether this Government was delivering an improved transport service and whether we were focussing on the issues of local government and regional assemblies. Clearly we were. We recognised that some people wanted to question the Secretary of State. That was why Mr Byers was going to the Commons this afternoon.
Nevertheless, the Government was continuing to address the longer term issues which were of real concern to the public. Asked to explain what had happened to the ‘gagging clause’ in the agreed statement which had underlined that neither Mr Sixsmith nor the Department would discuss the issue any further, the PMOS said he did not believe that anything he had said had gone beyond the statement, which had admitted that there had been an incorrect understanding of earlier discussions on Friday the 15th.
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister and Stephen Byers had spoken about this matter in the last twenty-four hours, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. Asked whether Mr Byers would be joining the Deputy Prime Minister in a press conference about the regional assemblies later today, the PMOS said that as he understood it, the Deputy Prime Minister was planning to stay for part of Mr Byers’ Statement. He would have to depart in the middle, however, if he was to keep to the schedule. Obviously Mr Byers would be unable to attend the press conference because he would be in the House.
Asked if the Prime Minister continued to have full confidence in Mr Byers, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister continued to have full confidence in all his Ministers.
Asked who had taken the decision that Mr Byers should make a Statement today, the PMOS said Stephen Byers. Questioned as to whether Downing Street had approved the Statement, the PMOS said that it was Stephen Byers’ Statement.
Lobby
Questioned as to whether there were any broad areas of policy or issues which he would like the Lobby to raise today in light of the publication of Alastair Campbell’s interview in the Times, the PMOS pointed out (in his most paternal manner) that it was up to the journalists to ask the questions. He added, however, that this was a welcome innovation and that he would come fully prepared with policy questions for everyone at the next briefing.
Sport/Crime
Asked to explain the policy involved in the Prime Minister’s visit to the Rockingham Estate Play Association in Southwark, the PMOS said that he was focussing on an initiative to divert young people away from crime by giving them something better to do. Three hundred housing estates would receive part of a £12m funding package to increase sports and arts opportunities. The idea was to give children the facilities to participate in sporting activities, learn how to use the internet and apply their creative skills. We would extend the number of summer schemes from 65 to 600, and increase the number of youngsters taking part from 6,500 to 48,000.
Middle East
Asked whether the Government was in contact with the Israeli Government, PMOS said that we remained in contact through the usual diplomatic channels. Asked whether the Prime Minister had spoken to the Israeli Prime Minister recently, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. However, Jack Straw had had a lengthy discussion with Colin Powell this week about the situation in the Middle East.
delicious
digg
facebook
