Press briefing from the Prime Ministers Official Spokesman on: Iraq, Pensions and David Blunkett
Iraq
Asked if the British Government was concerned that US troops had used white phosphorous in combat in Fallujah and what was the British military’s policy on the use of white phosphorous, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that use of white phosphorous by the US was a matter for the US Government. British forces did possess white phosphorous but it was used for producing smoke. This was how it was being used in Iraq. We had also signed the third protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons, which covered incendiary weapons.
Asked if the brush that tarred US activity also tarred the British Government, as it was a major part of the coalition, the PMOS said that what he had heard on this was assertion rather than evidence and as such it was better for the US to deal with this matter. However it might be useful to put Fallujah into context again. It was important to remember first and foremost that efforts were made to settle the Fallujah issue by the Iraqi Government in a peaceful way. The offer to talk was made but the insurgents had refused that offer. The approach of the Iraqi Government had always been that the future of Iraq should be settled by elections not by insurgency such as we had seen in Fallujah. Asked if the policy on the convention was clearly understood by our troops out in Iraq, the PMOS said that operational detail was a matter for the Ministry of Defence to comment on. However, as a matter of broad policy we made every effort to ensure that our troops understood the rules of engagement. Asked to confirm for clarification that our troops had used white phosphorous in Iraq, the PMOS said yes as had been made clear by the MOD.
Asked what impact the 16 December elections would have on deployment in Iraq and whether it would facilitate withdrawal, the PMOS said that people should first of all recognise the significant achievement that the elections would represent. 15 million voters had registered for the elections next month. That was on top of the 10 million that had voted for the referendum. 317 parties and over 1000 lists had registered. In terms of public engagement and the rise of democracy the election would be a major step forward not least because there was clear evidence that the Sunni parties were engaging in the electoral process in a way that they had not done last January. That was very encouraging. The situation on troops was, as John Reid and the Prime Minister had set out, that the capability of the Iraqi forces had to be such that they were able to take responsibility for the security of their country. You would also have to take into account the view of the new Iraqi Government.
Put to him that articles in the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph today had suggested that after the elections there would be a marked change in emphasis and language, instead of talking about capability of the Iraqi forces it would switch to troop withdrawal unless the insurgency prevented that, the PMOS said that he did not quite see the argument. The capability of the Iraqi forces was growing all the time. Their ability to take on lead roles in countering the insurgency was now significantly increased. This was not a new process. The first time that we set this out was in April 2004. This was a policy that had been a long time in gestation and in essence had not changed in that period. Asked how we would characterise the planning for withdrawal, the PMOS said he would not provide a running commentary on where we were because it all depended on the capability of the Iraqi forces to take the weight as well as the views of the new Iraqi government.
Pensions
Asked what was it that the Prime Minister apparently regretted, as referred to in the Times today, on the public sector pensions deal, the PMOS said that we had set out at the time of the pension agreement why we believed it had delivered the savings that we said it would. It would save £13bn between now and 2050. In terms of future pensions the Turner report would be coming out on the 30 November. As such it was better to speak in that broad context when it came out. Asked whether the Prime Minister regretted that he was accused of caving to the unions, that he wasn’t consulted or that it happened, the PMOS said that Alan Johnson had made the agreement within the terms agreed by the Cabinet. In terms of the publicity at the time it was for journalists to judge for themselves. Put to him that the Times article was quite specific in saying that he regretted not just the publicity but also the deal, the PMOS referred journalists to what he had said at the time which was that we believed the deal had delivered the saving that we had required within the overall envelope of the agreement. Asked whether anything had changed since the Prime Minister was asked about it at his monthly press conference, the PMOS said there had been no developments. Asked where the Times got their story, the PMOS said that was a matter for the Times.
David Blunkett
Asked why David Blunkett was being allowed to hold onto his grace and favour residence, the PMOS said that the premise of the question was mistaken. David Blunkett had made it clear to the Prime Minister when he resigned that he would be moving out of his residence, but as with all former Home Secretaries there were security considerations which other people did not have. These meant the process took a little longer as it took time to get those security considerations in place. In answer to further questions the PMOS said that it had only been a matter of weeks since David Blunkett’s resignation and the security considerations had been as such for previous Home Secretaries as well. Being a former Home Secretary did put you in a different category.
delicious
digg
facebook
