Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Diagnostic Treatment Centres, Ministerial Changes/Clare Short, Saudi Bombing, Euro and Northern Ireland.
Diagnostic Treatment Centres
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister and Alan Milburn had hosted a breakfast seminar this morning attended by NHS representatives and heads of private sector companies who had been invited to bid to run and staff Diagnostic Treatment Centres. We wanted to increase capacity in order to deal with the specialities which had the longest waiting times, for example knee, hip and cataract surgery. By 2005, we aimed to have at least an additional 250,000 operations/procedures taking place, with a maximum waiting time of six months. As the Prime Minister had said this morning, the aim was to increase capacity through a mix of providers from both the NHS and the private sector. Our goal was to end up with a situation where the state was the enabler and regulator, but not always the provider. The basic principles of the NHS would remain, but we would simply implement them in a different way for today’s world.
Ministerial Changes/Clare Short
The PMOS drew journalists’ attention to a press notice issued this morning announcing two ministerial changes. Hilary Benn had been appointed Minister of State at DfID and would speak on international development issues in the House of Commons. His replacement as Parliamentary Under Secretary in the Home Office was Paul Goggins.
Questioned as to whether Hilary Benn’s appointment today meant that DfID had gained an extra Minister, the PMOS confirmed that was the case. He said that it reflected the higher profile and greater importance which the Government had placed on international development issues. It also reflected the need to have a Ministerial spokesman in the House of Commons. Asked when Baroness Amos’s replacement at the Foreign Office would be announced, the PMOS said he was not expecting an announcement to be made imminently. Asked why the Prime Minister had considered it important to appoint a junior Minister to the Home office but he had yet to appoint a Minister of State to replace John Denham, the PMOS pointed out that Baroness Amos’s appointment meant that it had been important to appoint a spokesman to speak about international development issues in the Commons, hence Mr Benn’s appointment. That logic did not apply to those posts that were still vacant but which would be filled in due course.
Asked if the Prime Minister was satisfied that the Chancellor’s ‘friends’ had nothing to do with Clare Short’s call last night for the Prime Minister to resign, the PMOS said that Ms Short had clearly chosen to express herself in her own way. That was entirely a matter for her. The Prime Minister was continuing to focus on getting on with the business of delivering the Government’s programme of investment and reform which he had been elected to deliver. Asked the Prime Minister’s view on the suggestion that the length of Prime Ministerial terms should be limited, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister was focussing on delivering the agenda which he had been elected to deliver. Put to him that he could surely think of a better reply, the PMOS said that, quite frankly, he had never heard the Prime Minister express a view about the subject. Clearly the Prime Minister was getting on with delivering the agenda he had been elected to deliver.
Asked the Prime Minister’s reaction to the charge that he was acting in a presidential manner, the PMOS said that if he was being asked about Ms Short’s view yesterday regarding the future of Iraq, the fact of the matter was that reconstruction and humanitarian issues had been a recurring point of discussion, not only at the ministerial meetings on Iraq but also at Cabinet last Thursday which Ms Short unfortunately had not attended. Furthermore, no one would deny that it was the job of the Prime Minister to take the lead as and when important issues were raised. This Prime Minister did so by working with his colleagues both in Cabinet and through regular meetings with them on matters such as street crime and asylum in order to achieve the goals which the Government had set out to the electorate. Put to him that the main thrust of the complaint was the fact that the Prime Minister seemed to be happy working with unelected colleagues, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister sought the best advice wherever he could obtain it. Obviously that did not mean he ignored the views of his senior colleagues or Parliament. On the contrary. He had stood both before the House and before the media countless times so as to explain his policies. This was clearly something he would continue to do.
Asked to explain the legal cover for reconstruction in Iraq and a new Iraqi government, the PMOS repeated the view of the Attorney General who had underlined again last night that the Government had acted entirely legally and would continue to do so. We were seeking a consensus at the UN in terms of the way forward, rather than focussing on points of difference. Our key objective was to transfer authority and power as quickly as possible to the Iraqi people themselves, and it was precisely this which formed the core of the approach we were taking. The draft Resolution made it clear that it was not the role of the Coalition to dictate the formation of the Iraqi interim authority (IIA). Nor had we ever had any intention of doing so. Rather, we wanted to create the circumstances - as we had in Afghanistan - where one could emerge. The UN had a vital part to play in that process, particularly through the role of the UN Secretary General’s ‘Special Co-ordinator’. It was through this process of consultation and consensus that we believed we would arrive at an IIA which would reflect and represent the Iraqi people as a whole. Asked why the Government was so reluctant to publish the Attorney General’s advice, the PMOS said that the priority of the Attorney General - like that of any other lawyer - was to provide independent advice free of the pressures which publicity would bring. That was also the reason why the advice provided by senior Civil Servants was never published. It was also a convention accepted by successive Governments down the years as necessary to protect the role of the Attorney General who carried out his job independently of other Ministers and gave his advice freely. That said, if misleading reports appeared suggesting that his advice was something other than it was in reality, he reserved the right to correct that impression, as indeed he had done quite properly both in the run up to the war and again last night.
Put to him that it seemed the Attorney General’s advice could be published when it was deemed suitable to do so as evidenced by Clare Short’s apparent decision to publish part of the advice while still Secretary of State at DfID, the PMOS said that he would disagree. The Attorney General was very clear about his role and both he and his predecessors agreed that it was right. Asked how the public would know that Ms Short had given a correct interpretation of the advice if the Government refused to publish it, the PMOS pointed out that the Attorney General’s response last night had not been issued lightly. Nor had he given his advice lightly in the run up to the conflict.
Asked to confirm that a legitimate government in Iraq would be established under the UN’s auspices following Ms Short’s claim that this was something which the Coalition itself was attempting to do, the PMOS said that the draft UN Resolution was about the humanitarian and reconstruction effort in Iraq. The establishment of the IIA was being done through a process of consensus which involved the role of the Special Co-ordinator. It was important to recognise that the UN itself had not sought the role of administering Iraq, as the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, had made clear on a number of occasions.
Asked if Ms Short’s description of Government policies, such as foundation hospitals, being ‘rammed through’ Parliament was a fair characterisation, the PMOS said he considered the suggestion peculiar, particularly in light of the fact that the Health Secretary had given a very public explanation of the case for foundation hospitals last week, both to the House and to the media. Mr Milburn had been intimately involved in the policy right from the outset. The process of discussion between the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues was well established. The question appeared to imply that the Prime Minister should not be involved in any policy areas. The country at large would regard that as a somewhat peculiar situation. Put to him that Ms Short’s comment centred on the fact that it was advisors to the Prime Minister, rather than Civil Servants, who were drawing up the policies, and so people were entitled to know who had come up with the idea of foundation hospitals, the PMOS said that ideas should valued and treasured. It was not a question of stamping ownership on a proposal being put forward. Such a thing would indeed be odd. The fact of the matter was that Cabinets discussed many issues across the board. This meant that Ministers around the table were able to contribute to subjects outside their area, as Ms Short had done on a frequent basis before resigning.
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that Cabinet discipline was beginning to break down, the PMOS pointed out that serving in the Cabinet was a voluntary occupation. It was not something which could be enforced. It was therefore entirely up to individuals to decide whether to stay or go. Either way, the Prime Minister was determined to continue working to deliver the Government’s agenda, and would do so together with his Cabinet colleagues.
Asked the Prime Minister’s view of Clare Short’s resignation Statement to the House yesterday, the PMOS said that Ms Short had been perfectly entitled to express her views. However, the Prime Minister had responded to some of her criticisms in his letter to her which we had published yesterday. His priority was to get on with his job, which was what he was doing today.
Saudi Bombing
Following overnight reports of a bomb attack in Riyadh, the PMOS said that our thoughts were with the families of those who had been killed and injured, as well as with the Saudi authorities as they dealt with the aftermath of the horrific attack. We still only had a hazy picture of what had happened, but there were unconfirmed reports of fatalities running into double figures, with perhaps over a hundred people injured. As he understood it, a small number of Britons had been injured, but there were no reports at this stage of any British fatalities. Obviously Embassy staff in Riyadh were working closely with the Saudi authorities.
Asked if the UK was reviewing the state of alert relating to British interests in the region, whether Foreign Office travel advice was being looked at and if we believed that last night’s attack showed that Al Qaida was back in business, the PMOS said that while these questions were legitimate and fair, they were however a bit premature. Our priority at the moment was to deal with the immediate aftermath of the horrific attack. Other questions would be addressed at a later stage.
Euro
Asked if Cabinet was due to discuss the Euro this week, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware.
Northern Ireland
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister had spoken to the Taoiseach following reports at the weekend concerning ‘Steak-knife’, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. The Taoiseach had said, understandably, that he would like to discuss the issue with the Prime Minister, as was right. No doubt that would happen at some point in the near future.
delicious
digg
facebook
