Downing Street Says » Deputy Prime Minister

Asked if the Prime Minister still retained full confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said yes. The PMOS had answered this question yesterday and nothing had changed since then. Asked whether the Prime Minister had discussed the Deputy Prime Minister with Sir John Bourne or Sir Gus O’Donnell, the PMOS said, as they all knew, that he did not get into giving the press a running commentary on the Prime Minister’s discussions with officials or colleagues. Journalists should not read into that one way or the other.

Put that the PMOS had previously told the press when the Prime Minister had referred things for investigation, the PMOS said that he was not the spokesman for either gentleman but he would not encourage them down this route. Asked whether the Deputy Prime Minister had offered his resignation at all in the last few months, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. Asked why the Deputy Prime Minister had gone to the ranch of Mr. Anschutz, the PMOS said that the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office had issued a statement on that and he would refer journalists to that.

Asked why the Prime Minister still had full confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister, the PMOS said that, as set out in the appointment letter, John Prescott fulfilled a very valuable role in liaising between members of the Cabinet, in chairing Cabinet committees and in resolving difficult issues, which were inter-departmental. The experience that John Prescott had brought in his time in government gave him a unique role in resolving such matters.

Asked whether the Prime Minster thought it wise for the Deputy Prime Minister to meet Mr. Anschutz, the PMOS said that the important point, as Mr. Prescott’s office had pointed out, was that the Deputy Prime Minister was not involved in deciding the planning application, that was a matter for the council. He was not involved in licensing individual casinos, that was a matter for the gambling commission. It was important that the government spoke to potential inward investors. The Prime Minister believed it was important that his ministers met large investors in this country on a regular basis.

Put that the Deputy Prime Minister had confirmed that they had discussed the post-sale use of the dome, the PMOS reiterated that the important thing was that the Deputy Prime Minister was not involved in the licensing of individual casinos. Put that the Deputy Prime Minister had the overarching role of regeneration and that he had allegedly argued in favour of casinos in Cabinet, the PMOS said that he was not going to get drawn into commenting on such detail, as it was a matter for the ODPM. It was important, however to recognise that the Deputy Prime Minister was not involved in individual planning applications or decisions on individual casinos.

Put that a conflict of interest could arise through indirect influence, the PMOS said that this was venturing into hypothetical territory however thinly it was disguised. Put that on the one hand we were saying that the Deputy Prime Minister was this overarching minister in cabinet committees and on the other he had no influence because it was not in his specific remit, the PMOS said that there was a distinction between resolving policy matters in committees and individual decisions about planning applications, which were decided by councils not by the Deputy Prime Minister. In response to the suggestion that planning applications ultimately went up on appeal to ministers, the PMOS said that he was not aware of any suggestion that this case had done so.

Asked whether the Deputy Prime Minister could recommend a £40 a night hotel in the US, the PMOS suggested that they would need to ask the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office that question. Asked what the Deputy Prime Minister’s agenda for today was, as they were getting no joy at the ODPM, the PMOS suggested that they kept trying. Asked whether any other civil servants had complained about the Deputy Prime Minister’s behaviour, the PMOS said he would not dignify that sort of question with a comment.

1 Comment »

Look PMOS – the bloke is a complete tosser – always has been – pigeons are roosting – why not risk your job and admit what everyone including Tony knows. This tosser is HISTORY.
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 5 Jul 2006 on 9:57 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, July 5, 2006

Deputy Prime Minister

1 Comment »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries