Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: President Musharraf, PM’s Fabian Society Speech/Public Services, Reshuffle and Iraq.
President Musharraf
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister would be holding a significant meeting with President Musharraf of Pakistan today. The President was currently touring Europe, during which he would be visiting Germany and France. Today’s meeting followed the Prime Minister’s meeting yesterday with the Indian Deputy Prime Minister.
PM’s Fabian Society Speech/Public Services
The PMOS informed journalists that the Prime Minister was due to address a Fabian Society event later today. Although much of it would be party political, the core of the speech would focus on the core objective of the Government’s second term, namely reform of public services - in particular the principle of equity and choice. The Prime Minister would indicate that the services inherited by the Government on coming into office were two-tier because the quality of service depended on where people lived and what they could afford. By giving people a genuine choice of services such as education and health, the Government’s aim was to address that deficit. He would illustrate how we were doing that by focussing in particular on the experience of cardiac surgery, especially in London where patients were exercising choice, and City Academies in terms of education. Asked if the speech would contain anything ‘new’, the PMOS said he thought that journalists would find it genuinely interesting given the Prime Minister would take the opportunity to develop the Government’s core message. Asked if the Prime Minister was beginning to get bored making the same speech on public service reform, the PMOS said he would disagree with the premise of the question. It was no more the same speech than any of the journalists’ daily scribblings and reports were the same. It was a development of his thinking on public service reform and would be very interesting to listen to. He would focus on the principle of equity and choice, how that should be implemented and what the implications were on public service reform, the pace of it and our continuing commitment to it.
Asked if the Prime Minister would accept that there was still a two-tier system despite six years in Government, the PMOS said the Prime Minister accepted that there was still much to do. However, the combination of investment and reform was addressing that issue by giving people genuine choices, particularly in terms of cardiac surgery and City Academies, for example.
Asked if the Prime Minister would use his speech to say anything about the Constitution, the PMOS said that the issue would be mentioned only in the context of the overall message of reform. He reminded journalists that the Prime Minister was due to set out his detailed thoughts on the reshuffle in the Commons tomorrow.
Reshuffle
Asked why the Prime Minister would not be opening today’s Opposition debate on the constitutional implications of last week’s reshuffle, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had explained in his letter to the Opposition Leader yesterday, he considered his pre-arranged meeting with President Musharraf too important to cancel, which was why Peter Hain would be opening the debate instead. In his view, not only was it important to discuss India/Pakistan relations, but Pakistan was also an important player on the world stage in terms of what happened next in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister had already indicated, he was more than willing to go to the House tomorrow to explain his thinking behind what was clearly a fundamental reform in terms of separating the Executive from the legal process and, despite the furore, implementing what most people would agree was actually a sensible position relating to Scotland and Wales. Asked why the Prime Minister couldn’t have come to the House later today, the PMOS said that the issue had been discussed through the usual channels, as you would expect, and it had been agreed that tomorrow was the better option for him. He was perfectly relaxed about going to the House and setting out his case because he believed fundamentally that what was being proposed went with the grain of a large amount of legal opinion which had been seeking this change for some time, and also with the reality of the implications - and success - of devolution. Asked why the Prime Minister hadn’t volunteered to make a Statement if he was so happy to set things straight to the House, the PMOS said that these matters were decided through the usual conventions. This case was no different.
Questioned as to why the reshuffle was so protracted given yesterday’s announcement of a new ODPM Minister, and why the ODPM had been unable to explain what that Minister’s responsibilities were, the PMOS said that it was not unusual for an unpaid minister to be added at the end of the reshuffle process. Equally, in terms of ministerial responsibilities, it was not unusual for Departments to take a little time to think through precisely what each Minister’s role should be. The PMOS pointed out that unpaid Ministers was not a new concept. Michael Wills, for example, was an unpaid Minister in the Home Office. Unpaid ministers had also been a feature of previous Administrations. Asked why an additional Minister at ODPM had been appointed, the PMOS said that Secretaries of State were perfectly entitled to look at the requirements of their Departments and to use the option of appointing an unpaid Minister if it was felt to be necessary. There was nothing unusual about yesterday’s appointment. To suggest otherwise would be to ignore past precedent. Asked what sort of person would want to be an unpaid Minister, the PMOS said that people who were prepared to work without pay should be given due credit for that. He also pointed out the fact that there were already two unpaid Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office as a result of the suspension of the Assembly, which had also had to be factored into the reshuffle equation.
Asked if there was any acknowledgement within Downing Street that the presentation of the reshuffle had been a bit rubbish, particularly in terms of the fact that it had ended with the Prime Minister being summoned to the Commons ‘in unprecedented fashion’ to explain his actions, the PMOS said that he was not sure that precedent would back up the statement being made here. The important point was that the fundamentals of the reshuffle were sensible and right. It might take time for the dust to clear, but when that happened, people would understand that the separation of the executive and judiciary was long overdue and was the right thing to do. We recognised that people would want to be consulted about the next steps in terms of the establishment of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Appointments Commission. As we had underlined on Thursday, that would indeed happen. Similarly, we recognised that people wanted to be sure that the interests of Scotland and Wales would be looked after properly in Westminster - and it was right and proper for people to ask questions to ensure such a thing happened. Ultimately, however, it was important to recognise that what had been proposed went with the grain of both political and media opinion in Scotland and Wales, as anyone who had studied the coverage over the last year would doubtless agree.
Asked if Downing Street was irritated by the fact that the reshuffle appeared to have ruined the vision of joined-up Government and whether there were any regrets about the way the whole matter had been presented, the PMOS said that No 10 was responsible for many things, but not for how the media chose to report events. It appeared that the media’s coverage of late had focussed on the presentational aspect of the reshuffle, rather than the substance of it. In our view, the latter was more important. Asked if he was implying that the way the reshuffle had been perceived was due entirely to the way it had been reported, the PMOS said that it was not his job to act as a media commentator. He was merely making the point that if people looked at the reality of what had been proposed in terms of the role and the post of the Lord Chancellor, it was very difficult to argue that this was not a major reform. It was a significant reform and was one which many in the legal profession supported and had been calling for for some time. Moreover, given the success of devolution, the changes in Scotland and Wales were not only inevitable but also sensible. Asked again if he was implying that the presentational shambles was a result of the way the media had reported the reshuffle, the PMOS said that he did not accept the premise of the question. He was simply making the point that people should focus on the substance of the matter, rather than on presentational issues. The latter was clearly less important than the former. Put to him that it had been difficult for journalists to focus on the substance over the last few days given the fact that each Departmental press office had given a different version of events, the PMOS said that obviously we wanted people to focus on the substance rather than other issues, although we recognised that hadn’t happened in this case. In five years’ time, people were not going to care about the media headlines from this week. They would consider the legal changes being proposed to be far more important. Pressed as to whether Downing Street was disappointed by the adverse coverage of what should have been a good news story, the PMOS said that there was no ’should have been’ about it. We continued to believe that it was a good news story. That was why we were determined to focus on the substance of it, rather than get side-tracked onto presentational matters.
Asked to explain why it was a good thing to separate the executive from the judiciary, the PMOS said that the view in many legal circles was that it would reduce any possibility of contamination between the two processes. Such a separation was clearly a good principle as evidenced by the fact that other countries, in addition to the US, also adhered to it. It was something for which many legal authorities in the UK had been arguing for some time and the Government had decided to do something about it. Rather than having one person wear three different hats, it was better for the processes to be set out clearly and unambiguously. It was also right and proper for the House of Lords to be given the opportunity to appoint its own Speaker rather than have the Prime Minister do so.
Questioned about the Prime Minister’s Statement tomorrow, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister would launch a strong defence of the changes and explain why he believed they were necessary and right for this country.
Iraq
Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned about reports today that a senior British official had claimed that the US’s work in rebuilding Iraq was in chaos and lacked strategic direction, the PMOS said that it was important to distinguish between the immediate aftermath of the conflict and the position in which we found ourselves today. After the fall of Saddam, we had found a country even more impoverished than we had first thought, a country which had been tyrannised in an evil and brutal way as evidenced by the mass graves that were being discovered, and a country where people were not used to taking decisions for themselves because of their fear of the regime. This had posed problems which we had obviously had to address. We readily acknowledged that it had been difficult in the immediate aftermath of the conflict. However, with the arrival of US administrator, Paul Bremer, and also the UK’s representative, John Sawers, we had seen the establishment of a process in which we determined to get to grips with the problems. Mr Sawers was due to return to London shortly to take up his post as Political Director of the Foreign Office and would be replaced by the UK’s Ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock. No one was pretending that Iraq had returned to a state of normality overnight. Obviously it hadn’t. Nevertheless, people shouldn’t underestimate the work that was taking place to improve the situation slowly but surely. Similarly, the organisation was improving day by day. Put to him that the criticism that had been made related to the current situation, not the position in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, the PMOS said we believed that strategic direction was being provided by Paul Bremer and John Sawers. No doubt Mr Sawers’ good work would continue to be developed with the arrival of Sir Jeremy Greenstock.
delicious
digg
facebook
