Press Briefing: 11AM Monday 8 March 2004
10 Downing Street
March 8, 2004
Northern Ireland
The Prime Minister's Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists
that the Prime Minister would be meeting Ian Paisley today to take
stock of progress in the review of the Good Friday Agreement. The Prime
Minister would be seeing the SDLP on Wednesday afternoon. He would also
be meeting the Taoiseach for dinner this week to discuss Northern
Ireland, as well as European issues given the fact that Ireland
currently held the EU Presidency.
Constitutional Reforms/Supreme Court
Asked the Prime Minister's reaction to apparent threats from the Lords to hold up the Constitutional Reform Bill,
the PMOS said that any Government was elected to make decisions and
bring forward legislation which it believed would improve our country.
A consultation on the constitutional reform proposals had taken place
over the course of four months. We believed it was the right thing to
do for reasons we had set out many times. In our view, it would
increase transparency, remove patronage and abolish the role of the
Lord Chancellor, thereby ensuring that the focus of the individual with
that responsibility could be far more narrowly drawn on issues of
delivery relating to the courts. The Supreme Court would separate the
judiciary from the legislature, with that separation enshrined in law.
The Government had decided to introduce the Bill in the Lords so that
they could conduct their proper role of scrutinising and improving the
Bill. However, the amendment being proposed would essentially kick it
into the long grass by setting up a Committee. This was a procedural
device which had not been used since 1975 and we regarded the move as a
delaying tactic. We would have to await the result of the vote tonight
before deciding how to take things forward.
Asked if the Government might agree to delay the establishment of
the Supreme Court in order to get the rest of the Bill through
Parliament, the PMOS pointed out that today was only Second Reading of
the Bill in the Lords. We wanted all these reforms on the statute book.
Put to him that reintroducing the Bill in the Commons and then invoking
the Parliament Act if necessary would make it almost impossible to get
the Bill through before the next election, the PMOS said that it was
important to be patient and wait and see what happened in the Lords
today. Self evidently, the Government could not be put in a position
where it was held hostage to the Lords on issues relating to reform. We
would have to reflect very carefully on the outcome tonight. Asked if
this sort of behaviour from the Lords would influence the Government's
thinking on the Lords Reform Bill, the PMOS said no.
Asked if the Prime Minister believed it was appropriate for the Lord
Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, to advise Peers to vote against the Bill,
the PMOS said that Lord Woolf was, of course, perfectly entitled to
express his views. Equally, the Government was perfectly entitled to
disagree with them and to continue with its programme of reform. We
were doing so with good reason.
Asked why the Government now appeared to be rushing to get the Bill
through Parliament when it had been in no particular hurry to bring it
forward in the first place, the PMOS said that the Government obviously
had to look carefully at its legislative programme. There were always
competing priorities as to what should be included in the Queen's
Speech. At around the time of the reshuffle last June it was true that
there had been a bit of static in the air. However, that was not to say
that the Government had not been reflecting on the issues for some
time. It had. Indeed, subsequent to setting out our plans, there had
been a four-month consultation exercise. For all the reasons we had set
out, we believed it was an important modernising piece of legislation
for our constitution.
Asked if he would agree that the rush to get the Constitutional
Reform Bill through Parliament would be particularly galling for
proponents of the Hunting Bill who had reportedly been told that that
Bill would not return to Parliament until much later in the year at the
very earliest, the PMOS said that the Government had to reflect on
different pieces of legislation, decide at what point to address the
different issues and when to bring forward legislation. When we had
anything further to say about hunting, we would let people know.
Immigration
Asked for a reaction to comments from Steve Moxon, an employee at
the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, who had claimed that
figures on immigration from Eastern Europe were being massaged, the
PMOS said that he had nothing further to add to the Home Office's
statement yesterday. Ministers at the Department had not allowed any
special exercise to process applications quickly from nationals from EU
accession countries in order to meet a 1 May deadline. There was
clearly concern at the allegations that had been made and Ministers
were investigating immediately. Asked why concern was only being
expressed now - after Mr Moxon had gone public, the PMOS said that it
wasn't his job to account for internal processes. He didn't know them.
He was simply making the point that since someone had made some
allegations, Ministers had asked for an immediate investigation. That
was surely the sensible thing to do. He said that we were sometimes
criticised for responding too quickly or dismissively to allegations.
In this instance, it was right they were being looked at. That was not
to comment on their veracity. Asked if the investigation would be
carried out in public or in private, the PMOS said that it would be
undertaken internally by the Home Office. Put to him that it should be
done in public, the PMOS said that in the first instance it was right
for Ministers to enquire of their Department about the allegations that
had been made. A decision regarding any next steps would be taken once
that process had been completed if it was appropriate.
Asked if Beverley Hughes had been asked why she had not responded to
a letter from Mr Moxon in which he had expressed his concerns, the PMOS
said that Ms Hughes had not seen, or been made aware of, the list of
questions forwarded by Mr Moxon.
Guantanamo Bay
In answer to questions about the British detainees at Guantanamo
Bay, the PMOS said that as we had maintained from the outset, this was
a complex issue. Discussions were continuing with the US regarding
their future, although they had concluded in relation to five of them.
Each circumstance was different. Asked when the five detainees were due
to return to the UK, the PMOS said he thought it could be at some point
this week. Asked about the fate of the remaining four, the PMOS said
that there were two options, both of which were well known to
journalists.
Questioned as to whether the five detainees would return to the UK
under an official security escort, the PMOS said that there were
clearly issues pertaining to security and questioning on their return.
However, we would not be giving a running commentary on their movements.
Middle East
Questioned as to whether a breakthrough or an announcement on the
Middle East was expected imminently in the light of the number of
meetings with key figures that had taken place in Downing Street and
Chequers in the last few days, the PMOS said that nothing had changed
since the last time he had been asked this question at the end of last
week. The meetings had not been sequenced in the way they had
deliberately. That said, they did underline a determination from all
parties to move the process forward, although we acknowledged that
there had been a further setback at the weekend. We had never
overstated the UK's influence in these matters. However, we were
obviously in contact with all the major parties and were continuing to
work hard to do all we could to reinvigorate the process. The meetings
did not preview any major announcement.
Professor David King
Asked for a reaction to reports, following the publication of a
confidential memo, that the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser,
Professor Sir David King, had been gagged by Downing Street following
his comments in which he had sought to categorise global warming and
international terrorism, the PMOS referred journalists to the
transcript of the press briefing he had given on 9 January 2004 when he
had said that Professor King had been expressing his own view, but that
we wouldn't necessarily rank terrorism and global warming inasmuch as
they were both serious problems and both merited a different response.
The Government was committed to dealing with both of them. The fact
that there was communication within Government shouldn't come as any
great surprise. It was perfectly possible for different parts of
Government to communicate with each other without it being seen as
'gagging' someone or showing disrespect to a distinguished member of
the scientific community and, indeed, the Government's Chief Scientific
Adviser - somebody whom the Prime Minister and Ministers held in high
regard. The PMOS also took the opportunity to point out that Professor
King had held a press conference at the conference in Seattle, where
the memo had reportedly been discovered, with an unrestricted Q&A.
Peter Foster
Asked for a reaction to the latest Peter Foster claims, the PMOS
said that as we had made clear at the weekend, we were not going to
dignify the allegations by responding to them. He had nothing further
to add.
Education
Asked the Prime Minister's reaction to the accusation by the
chairman of the Society of Headmasters and Headmistresses of
Independent Schools (SHMIS) that he was a 'public school toff' who had
manipulated the system to get his two sons into a good state school,
the PMOS said that he hadn't heard or seen the remarks before now.
However, his initial response was that freedom of speech was a key
characteristic of living in a democracy. People were entitled to
express themselves in the way they saw fit.
The Future of Iraq | The War and the Wider World | A Violent Month | Events of the Past Year | Government Documents | Maps
