Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: C H Tung, Margaret Hodge, ID cards, President Bush/PM’s Speech and Prime Minister/Chancellor.
C H Tung
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister had had a meeting with the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, C H Tung, in Downing Street this morning. This followed up a meeting they had had when the Prime Minister had visited Hong Kong in July. This morning, they had discussed the recent political and economic developments in Hong Kong, noting Hong Kong’s economic recovery following the SARS outbreak earlier this year. It went without saying that bilateral relations between the two of us were very good. The Prime Minister had also welcomed the Hong Kong SAR Government’s recent announcement that it would carry out public consultations about constitutional reform in early 2004.
Margaret Hodge
Asked if the Government supported Margaret Hodge’s action against the BBC Today Programme, the PMOS pointed out that Ms Hodge had issued a statement to the Today Programme this morning in which she had made clear the context of the letter she had written to the BBC in September which had not been for publication. The Prime Minister had appointed Ms Hodge as Minister for Children, a new Ministerial post, because he believed that she was the right person to do the job. Asked again whether the Government supported Ms Hodge’s action against the BBC Today Programme, the PMOS repeated that Ms Hodge had made clear the context of her letter to the BBC it clear in a statement this morning. She was a member of the Government and as such, obviously had our support.
Asked if it was appropriate for the Minister for Children to make substantiated claims about the mental state of someone who had written to her in confidence, the PMOS said that in her statement today, Margaret Hodge had again expressed her deep regret for those children who had been abused in Islington children’s homes for many decades. She had an important job to do in Government and she was getting on with doing it. Referring to Demetrious Panton in her statement today she had said, "I would agree that Mr Panton’s experiences in the 1970s were dreadful, and it is a tribute to him that he continued to pursue his case until the mid-1990s, when the police finally agreed to look in to the details". Asked if it had been right for Ms Hodge to cast aspersions on Mr Panton’s mental state without knowing him, the PMOS said that Ms Hodge had released a statement about this issue today. As far as the Prime Minister was concerned, she had an important job to do and she was getting on with doing it. Pressed as to whether it was acceptable for a Minister with responsibility for children to write a private letter denouncing as mentally ill a person she had never met, the PMOS said that she had sent a private letter to the BBC which, as she had made clear, was not for publication. Put to him that, despite her statement today, Ms Hodge had not resiled from her description of Mr Panton as ‘an extremely disturbed person’ and whether the Government agreed that she had been right to make such an assertion whether in public or private, the PMOS repeated that Ms Hodge had explained the background to this issue today. She had also made clear that she had an important job to do and she was looking forward to carrying it out as effectively as possible with the Prime Minister’s support. Asked if the Prime Minister was aware of the fact that she had written a private letter to the BBC libelling a man, the PMOS noted that it would be unusual if a copy of every single letter that was sent within Government crossed every desk in Downing Street. Pressed as to whether the Prime Minister was aware of all the facts of the case, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister would not have appointed Ms Hodge to the post of Minister for Children had he not felt that she was the right person to take forward all the issues arising from the terrible Climbie case and the subsequent Laming report, for example. It was an important new post. The PMOS said he recognised that there had been issues which had been well ventilated in the press regarding her time at Islington. However, the Prime Minister continued to believe that she was the right person to do the job she was currently doing. Put to him that the abuse in Islington children’s homes was totally separate to the Victoria Climbie case inasmuch as the Minister for Children had written to the BBC asking the organisation not to run an item because it was based on the evidence of someone who was supposedly ‘extremely disturbed’, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister’s support for Margaret Hodge had not changed since she had first been appointed Minister for Children.
ID Cards
Questioned as to whether ID cards would definitely be introduced at the end of the decade if this Government was still in office, as David Blunkett seemed to have taken things a bit further this morning, the PMOS said that the position on ID cards remained that set out by the Home Secretary. As the Cabinet statement last week had made clear, there would be an incremental process. Following the consultation exercise which had been launched in 2002, we continued to believe that there were major benefits to have a national ID card scheme. However, we recognised that a number of issues would have to be resolved over the coming years. David Blunkett had made it absolutely clear this morning that the final decision on compulsion would be contingent on the practicalities of introducing such a scheme. There would be a two-stage approach. We were proceeding by incremental steps to build a base for a compulsory national ID card scheme. However, it went without saying that things had to be right before the final decision was taken - the politics, economics and practicalities.
Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with David Blunkett’s opinion that taking pre-emptive action by legislating for ID cards now was just as important in retrospect as Barbara Castle’s In Place of Strife proposals in the 1960s to prevent industrial unrest, the PMOS said that he had no intention of pre-empting the forthcoming Queen’s Speech. Mr Blunkett had simply been making the point that this was an issue upon which it was incumbent upon the Government to examine. He had said he recognised that there was a lot of political static around regarding the issue. However, given the advances in biometrics and other developments in this area, it would be wrong for the Government to turn its back and not take prudent steps. Put to him that Mr Blunkett had been making the point that the In Place of Strife proposals would have been an election winner whereas the non-introduction of a national ID card scheme would be an election loser, the PMOS said that Mr Blunkett had made an analogy on the Today Programme this morning to give a bit of political colour. It was up to journalists to put their own interpretation on his comments. The reality was that we needed to look at the issue and do so in a way that commanded the confidence of the public. The Cabinet had approached the matter in a very considered way. There had been a lot of debate about it - indeed, the DA Committee had spent several hours talking about it at separate meetings. It had also been before Cabinet at least twice for a considered discussion. It was clearly an important issue. He didn’t have much more to say as there would be a Statement to Parliament shortly.
President Bush/PM’s Speech
Asked for the Prime Minister’s reaction to a survey published in the Times today suggesting that half of all respondents believed that the Prime Minister’s relationship with President Bush was damaging the UK, the PMOS said our view was that polls came and they went. The Prime Minister had spoken in depth at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet last night about UK-US relations where his views had been made crystal clear. This was a relationship of fundamental importance to the UK. He believed it was absolutely right that President Bush travelled to the UK for the State Visit next week. There were a huge number of issues which united our two countries, not solely security matters. For example, we had shared values of freedom, democracy and tolerance, and there were also issues of history and culture. It was right for those ties to be continually cemented. However, as the Prime Minister had underlined last night, it was also important to look at the relationship in the context of our relations with the EU as well. Both were vitally important for the UK.
Asked if he would agree that this was a ‘disastrous’ time in PR terms for the President to be visiting in the light of the current situation in Iraq and the threat of large scale protests on his arrival in the UK next week, the PMOS said no, and this was a question journalists should ask again at the end of next week. The visit was important for all the reasons the Prime Minister had set out in his speech. He pointed out that people had the right to protest in a democracy. Of course, it would be naive to suppose that there wouldn’t be people who would choose to demonstrate when President Bush was here. Indeed, the Prime Minister had been addressing that reality in his speech yesterday. However, as he had also made clear, we were in a different situation in relation to Iraq and it was important for everyone to do whatever they could to work towards the free, democratic and prosperous country we all wanted to see run by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people. He had made it absolutely clear in his speech last night why what was happening inside Iraq at the moment was a battle we had to win - and that in doing so, we would ensure that the ‘poisonous propaganda cloud’ was dissipated once and for all. Asked why the Prime Minister had only mentioned WMD once in his speech - and not even in the context of a reason for going to war, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister could never be accused of ducking the WMD argument. The fact he didn’t use the same language every time he made a speech was not something that people should be too concerned about. Put to him that the reason for the war had not been to make Iraq a better country, but because of WMD concerns, the PMOS said that the journalist knew well what the legal advice from the Attorney General had been.
Asked if there was any truth in the suggestion that President Bush had asked the Prime Minister to arrange for parts of London to be cordoned off so that he wouldn’t come within earshot of any protestors, the PMOS said that policing issues were a matter for the police and would obviously be co-ordinated in the usual way. Asked if the Prime Minister believed that people had a right to protest within earshot of President Bush, the PMOS repeated that the handling of protests and demonstrations was a matter for the police. As everyone was aware, there had been a number of protests about Iraq over the past year. He didn’t think that the Prime Minister or the President were under any illusion that some people held strong views. The Prime Minister respected that. However, as he had made clear in his speech yesterday, those who continued to be opposed to the conflict had to confront the reality that a different Iraq now existed - an Iraq free from the tyranny and brutality of Saddam Hussein who had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. Questioned as to whether the President had been told that ‘he was not Mr Popularity’ in London at the moment, the PMOS said that the President was travelling to the UK for an important State Visit. The relationship between the UK and the US was an extremely important one. There was a huge number of issues which united our two countries. It was the right moment for the visit. The relationship had never been defined by just one issue alone - and nor would it ever be. Asked who would be footing the security bill during the President’s visit, the PMOS said that since it was an official State Visit, the costs would be met in the usual way from public funds. President Bush was our guest.
Prime Minister/Chancellor
Asked if the Prime Minister had read Brian Wilson’s article today telling him and the Chancellor to stop squabbling, and whether he was concerned that such articles were now being published openly, the PMOS said that he and the Prime Minister hadn’t had a ‘What the Papers Say’ moment together this morning. He didn’t know if the Prime Minister had seen the article or not. Mr Wilson was perfectly entitled to express his views. However, as we had said many times in the past, the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor continued to be one of the great strengths of this Government.
delicious
digg
facebook
