Press briefing from the Prime Ministers Official Spokesman on: EU Budget, Terrorism Bill-ACPO, Aircraft, Energy-nuclear, Councils and Statesman Award
EU Budget
Asked if the Prime Minister had any plans to use diplomacy in the run up to the EU budget talks in December, and also was there any response to people who had said he was "leaving it far too late" to negotiate the budget, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that in terms of the latter point, Hampton Court was about setting the whole context, and we believed it successfully did that. We also had to take into account that Angela Merkel had just become Chancellor in Germany. What we had was a well thought through approach and process.
The Foreign Secretary had said in Brussels today that we would bring detailed proposals ahead of the Special Meeting of Foreign Ministers on 7th December. In no way did we underestimate the difficulties of doing a deal, but equally, no-one should underestimate our determination to try to see whether a deal was possible. The PMOS said that in terms of diplomacy, people should wait and see, but the Prime Minister was fully involved in this, and also in trying to help push movement on the WTO.
Asked what was made of Peter Mandelson’s comments regarding the budget, the PMOS replied that he did not comment on other people’s comments. Equally, we had said all along just how important getting a new budget was, especially for the Eastern European countries, so they could plan with a degree of certainty their future. It had to be the right deal, however.
Asked if the proposals would be published, or would they be put through to colleagues, the PMOS said we would have proposals put through to colleagues.
Asked did it matter if we did not get a budget deal, the PMOS said that particularly for the Eastern European countries, it was important that we did try and put some certainty into the system. Equally, as the Prime Minister set out in June in his speech to the European Parliament, and reiterated in a second speech to the EU Parliament, and at Hampton Court, it was important that Europe began to restructure its budget to meet the needs of today and the future. In terms of concentrating resources, the budget needed to be effective in meeting the challenge and the opportunity of globalisation.
Asked if the Prime Minister would discuss the budget with Chancellor Merkel during his meeting with her later this week, the PMOS it was inevitable as part of their discussions.
Asked if a change in leadership in Germany might make it easier to get a budget deal, the PMOS replied that the question was asking him to comment on the position of a new change in government before they had even taken office, and he did not think that would be very wise.
Terrorism Bill-ACPO
Asked if the Prime Minister thought the House of Lords should now accept the 28 days ruling from the House of Commons, and also were the comments about the death penalty regarding the police officer who died during a raid on Friday considered helpful, the PMOS said that given the horrific events of Friday, people were perfectly entitled to express their view. It was not one, however, that the Government agreed with. In terms of the Terror Bill, the Government’s belief was that 90 days was the right solution, but the Commons had spoken. What the House of Lords would do was a matter for them.
Asked what advice had Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) given the Government about issues like incitement to terrorism, the PMOS said that in terms of ACPO’s advice, it was a matter for ACPO to talk about, not him.
Put to the PMOS that he had talked about ACPO’s advice in the past, the PMOS replied that ACPO had made their view on 90 days public on 21st July. The PMOS said he would not pre-empt what ACPO said on other things.
Put to the PMOS that ACPO had said in the Terror Bill that some of the measures could be perceived as anti-Muslim, the PMOS said that he thought that the Guardian had said that ACPO had said that…which was not the same thing!
The journalist told the PMOS that he had phoned ACPO and they had said those were their views and they had expressed them to the Government at the time, the PMOS replied that in terms of 90 days, our position had not changed at all, as ACPO very strongly argued in favour of the motion.
Put to the PMOS that there was a situation where ACPO gave a lot of advice to the Government on various issues, and in some cases, the Government acted on the advice, but on others, it appeared to ignore it, the PMOS said it was always dangerous to look for consistency from the Lobby, but at the time, we were criticised for doing everything that the police had asked us to do, and now we were criticised for using our judgement! Our judgement on 90 days was, and still remained a compelling argument.
Aircraft
Asked if the Prime Minister would like a Government aircraft at his disposal, the PMOS replied that the simple fact was, as we had tried to tell people, that we had not yet received Sir Peter Gershon’s report, though other departments had. Therefore, it would better to wait and see what the report said. The facts were very simple: the present arrangements involved aircraft that were increasingly old and unreliable. Therefore, we had to do something about it, but it would be better to wait for Sir Peter Gershon’s report.
Asked whether it would be convenient for the Prime Minister to use, the PMOS said again it would be better that people waited for the report to come out.
Energy-nuclear
Asked if Professor David King had accurately mirror the Prime Minister’s views on the need to restrict the issue on nuclear power, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister’s view was that we needed to look at all the options. The important thing was that we looked at this both in terms of the energy security of this country, and that the energy market was changing, both in Britain and in Europe as well. We also needed to look at the issue of climate change, so both were guiding principles. With regards to a forward-look, there would be announcements soon, but the PMOS did not want to pre-empt them.
Put that the Prime Minister appeared to have made up his mind on the issue, the PMOS replied that what we did on an issue as serious as this was to look seriously at the options, and look at the change in circumstances, and look at the demand of climate change. If that process was to continue, it should not be pre-empted, therefore, people should let the process happen, step-by-step.
Asked if that would be a process that wanted an open debate in Government, the PMOS replied that these were genuinely very serious and important issues and they should get the study that they deserved.
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that the timetable for reaching a decision was more urgent, the PMOS said the Prime Minister would set out his view of this before too long.
Asked if it was fair to say the processes were linked in the minds of the policy makers, the PMOS said that all these were issues that were a legitimate part of the consideration, but people should wait until we were ready to make the announcement and take the process forward.
Councils
Asked for further clarification about a Daily Telegraph story regarding the abolition of county councils, the PMOS said: no. Ministers had taken no decisions about whether or not in some way to go for a reorganisation of the two-tier structure. We would be taking forward the vision for local government, alongside the work of Sir Michael Lyons’ inquiry and in partnership with local government and key stakeholders. We also anticipated drawing the debate together over the course of the next year.
Statesman Award
Put to the PMOS that the Prime Minister had been named as the Statesman of the Decade by an American think-tank, and was he flattered, the PMOS replied that the Institute was entitled to make its award, and the Prime Minister would respond when he was ready.
Asked when the Prime Minister was planning to pick up his congressional award, the PMOS said he was not aware of any immediate plans to do so.
delicious
digg
facebook
