Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Spokesman on: Prime Minister/Chancellor, ID Cards, Foundation Hospitals and EU Constitution/Energy.
Prime Minister/Chancellor
Asked if the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had agreed not to disagree in the future during their meal last night, the Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) said that she had nothing to add to what her colleagues had been saying about this matter yesterday. We had confirmed that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor would be having dinner, but that such an engagement shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone because the Prime Minister dined with Cabinet colleagues on a one to one basis about once a week on average when Parliament was sitting. Asked whether the meal had taken place in Downing Street and what had been on the menu, the PMS reminded journalists that it wasn’t our policy to brief on menus or venues.
Asked if the rift between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor - whether real or perceived - was a cause for concern in Downing Street, the PMS said that both her colleagues, earlier in the week, had described the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor as strong. That remained every bit as true today as it had been at the beginning of the week. Asked if she would describe the relationship between the two as ‘excellent’, the PMS said that she would stick to the description provided by her colleagues. Obviously, that was not to disagree with the term used in the question. Put to her that if the relationship between the two had been good at the beginning of the week, it should have been even stronger after they had ‘bonded’ over dinner, the PMS said that she respected her colleagues and had every faith in their briefings earlier this week.
Asked for a reaction to all the media reports of a rift between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the light of the Chancellor’s failure to obtain a seat on the NEC and their apparently differing views on the EU Constitution, the PMS said that as she was a Civil Servant, the NEC issue was not a matter for her. She also reminded journalists that the view of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on the EU Constitution had been discussed at great length during briefings this week. There was absolutely no difference in their position. Asked if the Prime Minister had been given any warning that the Chancellor would be ’sounding off’ about Europe, the PMS said that she would disagree with the expression used in the question. She pointed out that the FT had carried a joint article by the Prime Minister and the Estonian Prime Minister about Europe on Monday, which it was clear that many journalists had not seen. Similarly, the Chancellor had written an article for the Telegraph on Wednesday and had also been interviewed several times. It was clear that their positions did not differ.
Asked to clarify the nature of Peter Mandelson’s role in Downing Street, the PMS said that Mr Mandelson was a backbench MP to whom the Prime Minister spoke occasionally. Asked how that statement squared with Mr Mandelson’s assertion that he spoke to the Prime Minister "the whole time", the PMS said that the Prime Minister was a very busy person and talked to a lot of people, as you would expect. Questioned further, the PMS said that she had no intention of getting drawn into a discussion about semantics. She was simply making the point that Mr Mandelson spoke to the Prime Minister from time to time.
ID Cards
Asked if the Prime Minister was disappointed about being defeated over ID cards yesterday, the PMS said that she disagreed with the premise of the question. We had set out the position on ID cards yesterday. We believed that they would be a useful addition, but recognised that introducing such a scheme would be a complicated process. We would be addressing all the questions over the coming months to ensure that we had a practical solution to any difficulties which might arise. Questioned as to whether feasibility studies on the practicalities of such a scheme would continue, the PMS said that the Home Office would be making a statement within the next few days in terms of how the issue would be taken forward. She advised journalists to be a little patient until then. Asked if this was part of the compromise which had been agreed yesterday, the PMS drew journalists’ attention to the cabinet’s statement yesterday which had said that "We intend to proceed, by incremental steps, to build a base for a compulsory national ID card scheme, with a final decision to proceed to a compulsory card later, when the conditions for moving to a compulsory card are met".
Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned about Cabinet divisions over the issue of ID cards, the PMS said that the Cabinet were united behind the policy, as their statement yesterday demonstrated. That was how the matter would go forward. Pressed as to whether the Prime Minister was concerned about the differences in opinion, the PMS said that she didn’t recognise the premise of the question.
Foundation Hospitals
Asked if the Prime Minister remained ‘hell-bent’ on getting legislation on Foundation Hospitals through the Commons, the PMS said that she didn’t agree with the description used in the question. However, the Government would be pursuing the policy and would ensure the Bill’s return to the House of Commons at some stage. The Health Secretary had set out the position on the Today Programme this morning.
EU Constitution/Energy
Asked for a reaction to today’s Telegraph story, based on a leaked letter from the DTI, regarding the possibility that the UK might have to give up control of its North Sea oil operations under the new EU Constitution, the PMS said that we didn’t comment on leaks. That said, a letter which the Foreign Secretary had sent to industry representatives on 30 October set out the position. Article III-157, cross-referenced to Article III-130, included a carve out which indicated that this area would remain subject to unanimity. In answer to further questions, the PMS said that we were still some distance from the end of the IGC negotiation. The position remained as Jack Straw had set out. The general principle of not agreeing to anything which was not in the interests of the UK still stood.
delicious
digg
facebook
