Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Fox Hunting Bill, President Chirac’s Comments, Fallujah, Condoleezza Rice and EU/Chancellor.
Fox Hunting Bill
Asked for some guidance on the Prime Minister’s plans for the Hunting Bill the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that we would have to wait and to see what amendments the Speaker selected. But as he had said yesterday if an amendment was selected which restored the Bill to the original Alun Michael Bill then the Prime Minister would vote for that compromise amendment. Asked if the Prime Minister expected the Cabinet to support that amendment the PMOS said that this was still a free vote. It was a free vote for Ministers just as it was for other MPs; in this regard the Prime Minister was just a Member of Parliament like any other. Asked to explain what the original Alun Michael Bill was proposing the PMOS said that what it proposed was licensed hunting. What it did not propose however was hare coursing or stag hunting, unlike the House of Lords Bill as it had come back and it did not have a wider definition of hunting. The House of Lords Bill allowed hunting for wildlife management as well as pest control, whereas the original Alun Michael Bill was restricted to pest control. Asked if the only way this measure could get on the statute book was if it passed through both houses and not through the Parliament Act the PMOS said his understanding was that was correct.
Asked what the Prime Minister was trying to signal by his support for the Alun Michael amendment the PMOS said that it would allow hunting but under a strict license and what the Prime Minister believed was that this was a sensible compromise. It was what he had always supported because he believed the country wanted was a sensible compromise. However this remained a free vote. It was unfortunate that the House of Lords had not adopted that compromise, but equally he recognised that there were very strong feelings in the House of Commons as well. He believed that what the compromise would allow was for hunting to be licensed in a more direct way than it was at present. Asked what he was doing to advocate this view the PMOS said he had always let it be known that this was his view, but it was a free vote and as such he could not impose his view in this situation. Asked if the Prime Minister had voted for a complete ban in 2002 the PMOS said that he would like to check on his 2002 position but in terms of how this debate had evolved the Prime Minister believed that the compromise was the best way forward. What it did was license hunting in a way that limited it whilst still allowing it to take place; he believed that was a sensible compromise, but he recognised it was a free vote. Asked what his response would be to the suggestion that the compromise was political cover the PMOS said the compromise was what the Prime Minister genuinely believed and what he genuinely believed was in the interests of the country as a whole. It was a way of resolving the issue, but at the same time he was realistic enough to recognise that there were very strong opinions on both sides of the argument.
Asked if the Prime Minister had views on timing of when the ban should come into force the PMOS said that the Prime Minister, as indicated, was of the strong view that there should be a delay to allow the hunting industry time to adjust if a ban were to pass, but it was a matter for Parliament. Asked why the Prime Minister reintroduced the Bill for a ban if he supported a compromise the PMOS said that he recognised that in a free vote the Commons had rejected the compromise position originally. Time had now passed and he believed people had seen the strength of feeling on both sides of the House and the Government had a manifesto commitment to resolve this issue during this Parliament, which was what it was doing.
President Chirac’s Comments
Asked for a reaction to President Chirac’s comments stating that the world needed a European balance to the US the PMOS answered "Quel Surprise!" This was a view which the President had expounded on many occasions. There was no surprise about it nor was there any hiding that there was a disagreement about it either. We did not believe in a world vision where you had competing spheres of influence. The President did. That was an open disagreement between us and we should be honest and transparent enough to admit that. We believed however that we could still work together because our whole approach, as the Prime Minister outlined in his Guildhall speech last night, was that we should focus on outcomes. We should focus on what we wanted to achieve. If you looked at a whole range of issues such as Iran where we had just worked successfully with the French and Germans, Africa, Afghanistan, and even the Middle East we shared a common view on what it was we were trying to achieve. So there was no reason why we could not continue to work together on issues like that, as well as on European issues, even if that meant conversations on Thursday would be tougher on other matters. That was life.
Asked about the President’s view that special relationships with America tended to be one-way streets the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister said in Washington he did not view the relationship with the United States as payback or quid pro quo in anyway. It was about outcomes rather than competition. We were working with the US as allies not because we did whatever the US wanted but because we agreed with the analysis on terrorism, we agreed with the analysis on Iraq and as President Bush outlined on Friday we agreed with the analysis on Palestine.
Fallujah
Asked what the Prime Minister thought of the video purportedly showing a US soldier killing a wounded Iraqi soldier in Fallujah the PMOS said that the important thing was, as the US Lieutenant-General said this morning, that the matter was fully investigated and we would await the outcome of that thorough investigation. It was also however important to recognise what the Iraqi Ministry of Health had said after sending a team into Fallujah yesterday. It found that the hospital had ample medical supplies. It had not found citizens in dire need of food and water because most citizens had left the city. It had found that out of the 17,000 buildings only 200 had sustained major damage and it reiterated that the Iraqi Government’s priority was the restoration of security and the rule of law. The Interim Iraqi Government in Fallujah now had six objectives, as they had outlined yesterday:
1. To deny Falluja as safe-haven for terrorists;
2. To enable citizens to return to their homes;
3. To return rule-of-law to Falluja, and appoint new civilian authorities, including police;
4. To deliver necessary humanitarian assistance;
5. To start a reconstruction programme
6. To ensure Fallujans can vote in the elections
Each of those objectives were objectives we were entirely comfortable with. Asked if the Prime Minister recognized that the incident might be as damaging to the coalition as the Abu Ghraib incident the PMOS said that the Americans had made it clear that they fully recognized that any breach of the usual guidelines by which armies operated was not only to be deplored but also was entirely damaging. We agreed with that analysis but it was for the Americans to investigate that incident.
Condoleezza Rice
Asked if there was any reaction to the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State the PMOS said that he did not think there had been an official confirmation yet. But in general terms Condoleezza Rice was someone who we had a close and regular working relationship with and someone whom the Prime Minister held in immense regard because of the way in which we had worked together over the last few years.
EU/Chancellor
Asked if there was any reaction to the European Union’s comeback to the Chancellor where they had suggested that Britain was just as much at fault for "jobs for the boys" as the rest of Europe the PMOS referred journalists to the Treasury’s reply.
delicious
digg
facebook
