Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Iraq/Inquiry, Royal Intruder and Tax.
Iraq/Inquiry
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) informed journalists that the Foreign Secretary had written this morning to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee (FAC) to inform him that the Prime Minister’s Director of Communications and Strategy, Alastair Campbell, would give evidence to the Committee at a time and place of their choosing. The PMOS briefed on the reasoning behind Mr Campbell’s decision. He said that Mr Campbell had always wanted to give evidence, but that Downing Street had been worried about the problems of setting a wider precedent. However, as a result of newspaper allegations over the weekend, it had become clear that false accusations had been made about Mr Campbell’s role and that of members of his staff. Factual inaccuracies had also been reported. This had prompted Downing Street to think again about the precedent issue. It had been decided that this case was different to any other inasmuch as Mr Campbell had been acting as the chairman of a cross-departmental communications committee and the line of questioning therefore fell into that category, rather than the personal advice he would have given to the Prime Minister. On that basis, the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Cabinet Secretary had all agreed that Mr Campbell should give evidence.
Asked whether Mr Campbell’s appearance before the FAC would be in public, the PMOS said that Mr Campbell would be more than happy for that to be the case, although ultimately it was up to the Committee members themselves to make that decision.
Asked why Jack Straw had announced Mr Campbell’s intention to give evidence, the PMOS pointed out that the Foreign Secretary was the Minister corresponding to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. The PMOS reminded journalists that Mr Straw himself would be giving evidence to the Committee later in the week.
Questioned as to why no one had ‘realised’ that Mr Campbell was the chairman of the cross-departmental communications committee, the PMOS said that it was not a question of people suddenly ‘realising’ that he was the chairman. It was the fact that the nature of the misinformation in front of the Committee had become clear over the weekend. As a result, the decision had therefore been taken to address the inaccuracies. Asked if the consultations between the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Cabinet Secretary had taken place yesterday, the PMOS declined to get drawn into a discussion regarding the processology of the issue.
Asked if the decision was in response to a letter from the FAC following a vote in the Committee last week to ask him to attend, the PMOS confirmed that a request had been made and a reply had been sent in the usual way on Friday in which we had set out our concerns about setting wider precedents. However, given the nature of the stories over the weekend and the misinformation that had been conveyed, Mr Campbell was prepared to correct the inaccuracies and set out the facts of the case. Asked to specify what sort of misinformation had been reported in the weekend’s papers, the PMOS said that it would be more useful for Mr Campbell to give his responses directly to the Committee. However, he drew journalists’ attention to Mr Straw’s letter to the Chairman of the FAC, Donald Anderson, in which Mr Straw had said, "…There was a newspaper report yesterday about the Committee’s inquiries so far which refers to earlier reports specifically claiming that the second dossier placed in the Library of the House on 3 February had been produced for Mr Campbell by four individuals, three of whom worked for Mr Campbell. Mr Campbell will want to tell the Committee that this was not the case and would like to explain the background". Asked if he was saying that a decision had been taken to break with Government protocol in order to rebut misinformation printed in the weekend papers, the PMOS said that given the nature of the allegations that had been made, we did not believe that the decision broke Government protocol. On the contrary. We believed that there were sufficient special circumstances in this case, particularly in terms of Mr Campbell’s cross-departmental role on Iraq communications, to allow him to appear without breaking with past precedent. Asked what had changed Mr Campbell’s mind given the fact that the Foreign Secretary’s point about members of Mr Campbell’s staff alleged to have been involved in the production of the dossier on Iraq was far from new and that there were no newspaper reports over the weekend containing new allegations, the PMOS said that reports had appeared over the weekend containing false allegations, despite our repeated attempts to deny them. This in itself was one reason for Mr Campbell’s willingness to appear before the FAC. The other point was the fact that Mr Campbell had fulfilled a cross-departmental role and was therefore able to give evidence about this aspect of his work, rather than the personal advice he had given to the Prime Minister. Quite simply, Mr Campbell wanted to set the record straight. In doing so he would underline the fact that that we had produced two separate reports of completely different natures. The first document had been a dossier, whereas the second one had been a briefing paper. That was a big difference. Asked if he was really asking journalists to believe that Mr Campbell had done an about-turn because of a report he had read in a newspaper which had not appeared to register with anyone else, the PMOS repeated that Mr Campbell had not wanted to break with past precedent. However, the allegations which had been made were very specific and were about his role as chairman of a cross-departmental committee, not about the personal advice he had given the Prime Minister. That was why it had been decided that he could appear before the FAC.
Asked if Mr Campbell had turned down the FAC’s initial request on Friday at his own behest but had now agreed to give evidence because the Prime Minister had ordered him to do so, the PMOS drew journalists’ attention once again to the Foreign Secretary’s letter to Mr Anderson in which he had written, "I should make it clear that, throughout, Mr Campbell, himself has wanted to appear before the Committee to rebut the serious allegations that have been made by journalists and others in relation to both dossiers. The concern which the Prime Minister and I had was….about the wider principle, which I know that in general your Committee appreciates, that staff…..working in a personal capacity to the Prime Minister or Ministers should not be required to give evidence to Select Committees. We are however persuaded that there are sufficient special circumstances here - in particular his cross-departmental role on Iraq communications - for Mr Campbell’s appearance which do not set a wider precedent". Put to him that Mr Campbell’s change of heart within forty-eight hours was odd if he had indeed been so desperate to give evidence to the FAC in the first place, the PMOS explained that the direction of the Committee’s work had only become clearer in that time when it had been understood that the inquiry related to Mr Campbell’s work as chair of the communications committee. Moreover, people had evidently had more time to think things through and decide how important the need to set the record straight was. Given the special circumstances here, we believed that it was possible to correct factual inaccuracies without breaking with past precedent.
Put to him that Mr Campbell’s desire to set the record straight also strengthened the case for the Prime Minister to appear before the FAC as well, the PMOS said that the Foreign Secretary, as the appropriate Minister, would set out the policy position later this week. The questions that had arisen related to the two documents that had been produced under Mr Campbell’s chairmanship of a cross-departmental communications committee. The fact that Mr Campbell was the chairman and not the Prime Minister was precisely the reason why Mr Campbell would be giving evidence. Asked if there was any chance that the Prime Minister might break with past precedent and appear before the FAC, the PMOS pointed out that the Prime Minister appeared before the Liaison Committee - on which the Chairman of the FAC sat - on a biannual basis. The ISC was also continuing its work. Put to him that the Liaison Committee presented little opportunity for close questioning of the Prime Minister about any one matter, the PMOS reminded journalists that no Prime Minister had appeared before a Select Committee since the Second World War. He would call that setting a precedent.
Put to him that the only new allegations contained in the weekend papers related to reports that Mr Campbell was preparing to quit over the whole matter and whether he had decided to give evidence to the FAC because he had been riled by that suggestion and wanted to put the record straight himself, the PMOS said he did not recognise the analysis that had been set out in any way, shape or form. Questioned about the allegations relating to members of Mr Campbell’s staff, the PMOS said that the fact they were not true had not stopped some papers repeating them. Put to him that many journalists would be out of job were they to change their journalistic practices, the PMOS said he admired honesty first thing on a Monday morning. No doubt it would have worn off by tomorrow. Put to him that journalists were finding it difficult to understand precisely why Mr Campbell had changed his mind, the PMOS said that we respected the facts and wanted to put them on the record in the perhaps vain hope that the media might report them. Our concern had not centred around being afraid to tell it as it was. Rather, it had been about the precedent issue. On reflection, we now believed that the point could be covered by the special role which Mr Campbell had played in his chairmanship of the cross-departmental communications committee. Asked to explain what had happened at the weekend to persuade Mr Campbell to appear before the FAC in the light of the fact that the allegations were not new, the PMOS said it had been the realisation that, despite our repeated denials, the allegations were forming a large part of the Committee’s work. Of course it was entirely up to the Committee to decide where they wanted to roam. However, we believed that it was important to set the record straight - and do so in a way that would not break with past precedent. Put to him that the FAC was banned from roaming into territory relating to Mr Campbell’s personal advice to the Prime Minister, the PMOS said it was not a question of being banned. As the Foreign Secretary had written in his letter to Mr Anderson, he hoped that the FAC would respect the context in which Mr Campbell would be appearing.
Royal Intruder
Asked about the responsibility the Home Secretary should take regarding the matter of the man who had gate-crashed Prince William’s twenty-first birthday party at the weekend, the PMOS said that this breach of security was clearly a cause for concern. The most important thing first-and-foremost was to find out how it had happened and whether it had been the result of individual failings or if there was a systematic problem. The Met had already set out their initial, if self-evident, view that there had been some sort of operational failure. The Home Secretary had called for an immediate factual report to explain the incident and was expecting to receive it later this afternoon. Depending on the outcome, it was possible he could call for a further inquiry. Asked if the Home Secretary had discussed whether he should offer his resignation to the Prime Minister or whether the Prime Minister had requested it, the PMOS said that he did not recognise either suggestion as relevant. It was more important to establish the facts and examine whether there were systematic problems which needed to be addressed. Asked why he was refusing to dismiss the suggestion that the Home Secretary had offered his resignation, the PMOS said he wasn’t ‘refusing’ to do anything. No, Mr Blunkett had not offered his resignation and nor had the Prime Minister sought it. Asked if the Prime Minister had offered an apology to the Queen, the PMOS said that it wasn’t our policy to brief on conversations between the Prime Minister and the Queen. It went without saying that we had signalled our clear concern.
Asked if he would agree that the incident at the weekend was less serious than the break-in by Michael Fagan in 1982 when he had managed to get into the Queen’s bedroom, the PMOS said that each case should be judged on its own. Any operational failure which involved the Royal Family was clearly a matter for concern and had to be investigated. Asked when the Prime Minister had first been informed of the incident, the PMOS said that he had been informed in the usual way. He had no intention of getting drawn down the path of processology.
Tax
Asked if the Prime Minister was happy about the fact that Stephen Byers and Peter Mandelson had entered the debate about taxation, the PMOS said that both Mr Byers and Mr Mandelson were backbenchers and, as such, were entitled to express their views. The Prime Minister himself had set out the Government’s position very clearly at the European Council in Greece on Friday. The PMOS said that he had nothing further to add.
delicious
digg
facebook
