Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Iraq and Public Services.
Iraq
Asked for a reaction to the evidence given by Robin Cook and Clare Short at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee hearing today, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said he did not think it would be right or proper to provide a running commentary on the evidence given to the Committee. We would respond to the Committee’s report as and when it was published. That said, he wanted to take the opportunity to point out an inaccuracy in Ms Short’s evidence. She had said she was convinced that the Prime Minister had agreed a date for war when visiting the US before his Sedgefield press conference in September last year because "he seemed belligerent at that press conference". In actual fact, the Sedgefield press conference had been held on 3 September - before the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Bush at Camp David on 7 September.
Asked how many times the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee had met in the run up to the conflict, the PMOS said that it wasn’t our policy to give a running commentary on the work and meetings of Cabinet Committees. Put to him that he had given a running a commentary on the FAC hearing this morning, even though he had said he wasn’t going to, the PMOS said that he hadn’t provided a running commentary. He had simply been correcting a factual error. Asked to do the same regarding Ms Short’s comments about the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee, the PMOS repeated that it wasn’t our policy to give a running commentary on Cabinet Committees. Pressed further, the PMOS said that there had been many discussions in the run up to the Iraqi conflict. In her evidence today, Ms Short had confirmed that she herself had received intelligence briefings, as had other members of the Cabinet, and she had also been given the opportunity to talk to relevant people in the intelligence community about it. Asked if she had received the same material as the Prime Minister, the PMOS declined to get drawn into a detailed discussion about what intelligence had been seen by whom. Asked if he would agree that the whole Cabinet Committee system was gradually being abandoned, the PMOS said no. He repeated that it wasn’t our policy to brief on Cabinet Committee meetings. That said, he would draw journalists’ attention to the Cabinet discussions in the run up to the Iraq conflict and also the discussions relating to the Euro which showed that Cabinet Government was alive and well.
Asked for a reaction to comments made today by the student whose unattributed work had been used in a Government dossier on Iraq in which he had claimed that a sentence referring to Iraq supporting ‘opposition’ groups in other countries had been changed so that it read ‘terrorism’ groups instead, the PMOS said that this was an old claim. As we had said at the time, we acknowledged it had been a mistake not to attribute parts of the middle section of the briefing document to the author.
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister had committed himself last year to going to war in the Spring, the PMOS said that he had nothing further to add to what we had already said about this matter in past briefings. The Prime Minister had spoken openly about the threat of WMD even before his first meeting with President Bush. The world had also been aware of the threat posed by Iraq in the light of the history of the past twelve years. Last autumn, as had been well documented, Saddam had been given ample opportunity to avoid war. All he had needed to do was comply in full with Resolution 1441. He had not done so. It was that process of non-compliance which had led to war, not a decision taken last year. Asked for a reaction to Clare Short’s declaration that the Prime Minister’s decision to go to war was based on half truths and exaggerations, the PMOS pointed out that this wasn’t the first time Ms Short had said such a thing. The Prime Minister had given his response to the comments at Evian when he had said that people who made allegations should produce the evidence to back them up.
Asked for a reaction to a warning by MI5 that it was only a matter of time before the UK was hit by a dirty bomb, the PMOS said that as he understood it, the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, had delivered a speech today about the war on terror, but had referred to ‘western cities’, rather than singling out the UK. In that sense, what she had said was nothing new. It was important for people to remain on a high state of alert, but not be panicked into over-reacting. If there was any reason for people to act in particular way or be warned of a specific threat, the Government would obviously do whatever was necessary to ensure that happened. Questioned further, the PMOS said that the speech today simply underlined what we had been saying since September 11 - that people should be highly cautious and remain alert, but that they should not be alarmed and panicked. If there was a specific threat, we would of course make sure that the appropriate action was taken. It was a fact of life that international terrorism posed a threat to this country, as well as to others. We would deal with it through the security services and Government Agencies taking the necessary action.
Public Services
Asked if the Prime Minister truly believed that the Government’s first six years in office had been spent trying to repair the failures of the previous administration, the PMOS said that in the Prime Minister’s view, the Government needed to make up for years of under-investment in our public services, but at the same time recognise that public expectations had changed. That was why he had put an emphasis on investment and reform and on equity and choice - hence the need for services of a sufficient quality and which were not limited to particular areas. Asked why the Prime Minister appeared to be blaming his current woes on the previous administration despite the fact that the Government had been in office for six years, the PMOS said that if not enough money had been spent on buildings, retaining staff and other aspects of public services, it was a fact of life that money would have to be spent - but in the most effective way possible and in a way which gave people real choice. Asked if the Prime Minister was hinting that taxes would need to rise in order to pay for the improvements to our public services, the PMOS said that while it would not be helpful to get drawn into a speculative debate about future Budgets and taxation policy, it would appear that some journalists had read a different version of the Prime Minister’s speech to the one he had perused a little earlier.
delicious
digg
facebook
