Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Spokesman on: Freedom of Information Disclosure Statement, Pensions White Paper, President Bush talks and Offical Residences
Freedom of Information Disclosure Statement
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) set out that the disclosure statement on the Iraq legal advice was a response to the Information Commissioner’s notice. Essentially there was nothing very new here, but it was decided that because Channel 4 had published a leaked copy of the Attorney General’s advice of 7 March during the General Election last year that we would make this response. The Commissioner himself had accepted that this did not in any way set a precedent. It was largely academic. As a reminder the 7 March advice was the Attorney General weighing up the pros and cons, by the 17 March, when he gave his final advice, the situation had changed. It had become clear that we were not going to get a second UN resolution and it in turn became clear that the Attorney General had to give a decision, yes or no. As the Attorney General had stressed himself, he had come to that view independently and that the answer was yes it was legal.
Asked whether the enforcement notice meant that the disclosure was not voluntary, the PMOS said that there had been an exchange with the Information Commissioner. We did not necessarily agree with his conclusions, but we had responded in a way that he agreed met the requirements of his enforcement notice. It was worth stressing that we still believed that it was important that the Attorney General, in not just in this matter but all other matters that he has to give advice on, had the space and therefore the privacy in which to make his decisions. This was why we had resisted publishing the analysis process, or indeed discussions with foreign governments.
Asked by Channel 4 which advice this disclosure related to, the PMOS said that it was the 7 March document, the leaked document Channel 4 had braodcast. Asked whether this had set a de facto precedent, the PMOS said that the Information Commissioner, himself, had been very clear that it had not set any precedent. Asked whether this was the full advice, the PMOS said that there were certain things that we had kept back: the analysis behind it and the process of research and inquiry for the reasons he had already set out. Asked what time period the disclosure covered, the PMOS said that it was from 7 March to 17 March.
Asked if this was the first time that the Information Commissioner had enforced the government to release information, the PMOS said that there were discussions all the time between the government and the Information Commissioner. It was not just about the relationship with Downing Street it was across all departments. People should speak to DCA for precise details.
Pensions White Paper
The PMOS explained that the Prime Minister had, in Cabinet and in his remarks to the press in the street, described the Pensions White Paper published today as a landmark process. It was about reaching a consensus that would last not just one generation but several generations. It was the result of an independent report that the government had commissioned. What it tried to do was address the very real challenges which the changes in the demographics of this country and every country had to face up to. The Prime Minister had also pointed out in Downing Street that we now had a real chance to reach a genuine consensus as a nation about how we met those challenges and he believed that was a very important moment.
Asked how long the Cabinet discussion lasted, the PMOS said, as they knew, John Hutton had led a detailed Cabinet discussion on pensions for an hour last week. Today was about marking the publication of the White Paper so it was more a summary of where we had got to in the process. The Prime Minister and John Hutton had underlined the significance of the moment.
Asked about alleged the Treasury caveat that it may not be 2012, the PMOS said that he did not want to get ahead of John Hutton’s statement to the House of Commons, but if people looked over the Prime Minister’s remarks this morning he had said two things. Firstly, that this process had been fully costed. This had been an independent report. The DWP had then carried out the hard work of costing those recommendations, these were then discussed with the Treasury and other interested parties about the test of affordability. The Prime Minister had said that we were confident that these proposals were affordable. Secondly, the Prime Minister had talked about the process, but it was best to take his words about that and 2012. He had indicated that he was confident that it could be done by 2012 but he also pointed out that it would be done within the lifetime of the next parliament so that was his guarantee.
President Bush talks
The PMOS explained that the Prime Minister and the President would discuss the full range of issues that you would expect: trade, the DOHA round was at an important stage; Iran, which was also at an important stage, MEPP following Prime Minister Olmert’s visit to Washington; but the Prime Minister’s main message would be the impressions he had taken away from his visit to Iraq. To get a feel for that journalists could read the transcript of the Prime Minister’s interview, last night, with Al Jazeera as the Prime Minister’s main message was summed up in that interview. It was that, we, looking in on Iraq should not disenfranchise the people of Iraq by refusing to recognise the wishes of the Iraqi people as represented by their democratically elected government. That meant in terms of our presence there recognising that no member of the government that the Prime Minister had met there had asked for us to withdraw immediately.
They certainly did not want us to stay forever, but we did not want that either. What they wanted was a steady transfer of control as Iraqi forces were ready. This would be what the Prime Minister would discuss this evening. He would also discuss the need for the international community as a whole, including through the UN, to get behind the democratically elected government of Iraq and support it. This meant restoring and improving it’s economy because even though that economy had grown by 10% this year it still had a lot of infrastructure improvements to be made. In addition as it guarded itself against the deliberate attempt by terrorists to destroy it he would say there was no excuse within the international community not to come behind a democratically elected government in Iraq.
As journalists knew the Prime Minister would give his third, in the series, of foreign policy speeches at 4pm UK time tomorrow. That speech would develop out of his thought on Iraq. He would say that the values of promoting democracy and of promoting development of a country were central to the approach needed in the international community as a whole. That meant standing up for democracy. It meant having agencies, which were not designed to meet the challenge of the world as it was in the immediate aftermath of World War II.
It meant agencies that were designed to meet the challenges of today’s world where we had greater economic interdependence because of globalisation; where we had more freedom of movement and information; but also one in which we should not be afraid to stand up for a process of democratisation. He would say that this meant changes to international organisations such as the UN, including the Security Council, the IMF and other international bodies. Specifically to make them more transparent in the way they operated and more representative as well, but also to reflect a greater political will to take on hard issues and not duck them. One example of how we needed to make it more representative was to transform the G8 from a small club into a body, which would routinely include the emerging economies as well.
Asked what was meant when saying the whole international community should be behind Iraq, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister meant that we needed to recognise, as an international community, that Iraq now was in a different place. It was in a different place because 12,191,000 had voted. There was a government that represented Sunni, Shia and Kurd’s. We had a Cabinet that represented the three ethnic groups. There was a Presidency that represented the three communities too. It was the Iraqi government’s view that the international community should support them. We agreed with that. The one basic criterion that we should now defer to was what the Iraqi government wanted. It was the Iraqi government that represented the people of Iraq not the terrorists who were trying to destroy it.
Asked if they would discuss the redeployment of British forces within the coalition in regard to handing over provinces in the south first, the PMOS said that we had no problems whatsoever with what the Iraqi government wanted to do. 14 of the 18 provinces were relatively calm. As Prime Minister Maliki said this week they hoped to begin the process of taking control when their troops were ready in the summer. We agreed with that. It would be province by province when the Iraqi’s were ready. What mattered was what the Iraqi government wanted and we would listen to that.
Asked whether the Prime Minister would be seeing anyone else in Washington, the PMOS said that tomorrow morning he would also see representatives of the Senate, from both sides.
Asked whether the Prime Minister would collect his Congressional Medal of Honour, the PMOS said that as they may have gathered from this week’s schedule we had a lot on our plates already. There would be an appropriate time and moment for the Prime Minister to recognise the very real privilege he had been given by the award. At the moment our focus was on the substance of the trip. Asked if that time would be after the Prime Minister had left office, the PMOS said that the question was so highly speculative that all he could say was that we were focused on the here and now.
Offical Residences
Asked for an update on official residences such as Chevening, the PMOS said that he had clarified this yesterday and without reopening old wounds for the Independent their political editor had, himself, said that the diary story had been wrong. It had been announced on the day of the reshuffle that Jack Straw would be moving out and Chevening would continue it’s traditional relationship with the Foreign Office. Asked about Admiralty House, the PMOS said that his estate agent powers only stretched so far. Journalists should consult the relevant departments.
delicious
digg
facebook
