Downing Street Says

Asked if it could be deduced that as he had highlighted the remit of the Sir Hayden Phillips review to look at state funding, was it the preferred option, the PMOS replied that it could not be deduced. That was why the PMOS had stressed that it was to examine the case and to consider. There was no point in announcing a review and then pre-empting the outcome, and we would not do that. The PMOS said that this had been a difficult issue for all political parties, and what this gave us was the chance to take a rational look at how to fund political parties and to try and get a consensus behind that. That was what we were doing.

Put that the timetable clearly meant that it would not be in the next Queen’s Speech, and why was there a delay, the PMOS replied that in terms of the timetable, we had to be realistic about the complexity of the issues involved. If there was a magic solution to this, people would have found it a long time ago, as everyone was aware of the drawbacks of whichever way parties had been funded in the past. What was now in question was to discern whether some consensus lay in the future. At the moment, there did seem to be a will to try and reach a consensus, so we should take advantage of this window of opportunity, but equally, we should not rush what everyone knew was a complex issue.

Put that the Prime Minister had said last week that he had been looking at some of the issues with Sir Gus O’Donnell beforehand, and was this one of the things they had looked at, the PMOS replied that what the Prime Minister was looking at was this kind of issue. What we had to now try and do was reach a consensus between the political parties. That was why Sir Hayden Phillips had been asked as an independent person to try and do that as someone who would not only go between the parties, but also involve the Electoral Commission as well.

Asked how long the Prime Minister had been looking at such issues with Sir Gus O’Donnell, and what had triggered that interest, the PMOS replied that if people looked back at the Government’s record in this area in terms of introducing transparency, this Government had introduced the Appointment’s Commission, the Electoral Commission, and the declaration of donations. This therefore was an issue which the Prime Minister had been aware of, and acting on for some time. In terms of recent events, clearly what the Prime Minister and Sir Gus had done was to accelerate a process of thinking that was already underway.

Asked if the Prime Minister accepted that he would not be announcing a review if the secret loans had not been revealed and also, why did he not tell the Chancellor about the loans, considering the Chancellor’s role in the election campaign, the PMOS said that in terms of internal party matter, that was a matter for the Labour Party. Recent events had obviously put a particular focus on this issue, but as the Prime Minister had said at the press conference last week, this Government had introduced greater transparency. What he had also said was that once the process had been started of transparency, then it had to be finished. This therefore gave everyone an opportunity to do so. What was new was that perhaps there was a greater willingness amongst all the political parties to try to reach a genuine consensus on how to resolve what for everyone was a difficult issue.

Asked if the number of MPs could be reduced to pay for party funding, the PMOS replied that he was not going to get involved in a tick-list of what was a good or bad idea, as it was best to leave it to Sir Hayden Phillips.

Asked how long had the Prime Minister been looking at the idea of state funding, the PMOS said that if people went back to the comments in previous press conferences etc, the Prime Minister had always said that the problem that he saw about state funding was not state funding per se, but whether there was a consensus, not only amongst political parties, but also amongst the public in support of it. Therefore, the Prime Minister had been aware of the issues around state funding for quite some time. Again, the PMOS was not pre-empting the outcome of Sir Hayden Phillips’ review in any way, as it was an obvious issue which anybody who was looking at this area would have to look at, along with the capping of the size of donations. These were all issues to be examined, not solutions at this stage.

Asked if the Prime Minister wished that Sir Hayden Phillips would make a public investigation, the PMOS said that what was important was that what Sir Hayden Phillips did was produce an outcome which had a genuine consensus amongst the parties. It was in whatever way he thought was the best way to produce that consensus.

Asked further about looking at state funding, as opposed to other sources of funding, such as the trade unions, the PMOS replied that that was not what we had said, as the second point was to consider the transparency of political parties’ funding, so it clearly took in other sources of funding as well. It was an overall funding issue.

Asked again about looking at the issues for political parties’ funding, the said that Sir Hayden Phillips could look at funding in general, and clearly, certain parties would raise certain issues. Therefore, it was entirely a matter for Sir Hayden Phillips how he talked to the parties, what the subject ranges would be, and where the consensus lay. The important thing was that we tried to use the recognition of the difficulties that all parties had with the current set-up to try and reach a new consensus and a way forward. This was an opportunity.

Asked if the Prime Minister had any plans to meet David Cameron or Sir Menzies Campbell, the PMOS said that he was not aware of any plans. The important thing was that Sir Hayden Phillips, as an objective figure, would be able to liaise with the parties and try and form his consensus.

Asked why did the Prime Minister think this was a difficult issue if people had stuck to the rules, the PMOS replied that as the Prime Minister had said at the press conference last week, whether a party took income from individuals, large companies, or trade unions, there were concerns. Equally however, there was not a consensus about state funding. Therefore, there was no one single solution that could be used. Therefore, what had to be done was to try and find a way which did give the greatest possible transparency, but at the same time, recognising that political parties had to get their funding from somewhere. Political parties were a crucial element of our democracy, and they had to be funded somehow. The question was: what was the best way to do that while preserving the greatest confidence of the public by giving the greatest transparency, whilst at the same time, not leaving political parties to live on air?

Put that before Jack Dromey "did what he did" we were asked specifically about funding, and it was agreed that there was no consensus, but it was also made clear that the Prime Minister had no intention of doing anything about it, so it was right that Jack Dromey’s intervention brought about the Prime Minister’s initiation, the PMOS replied that this was an issue which the Prime Minister was discussing, amongst others, with Sir Gus O’Donnell. The events of last week had clearly given a sharp focus, and had also clearly shown the problems about perception that there was. Therefore what we were doing was addressing those problems. Everybody should recognise that this genuinely had been a difficult issue for al parties.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

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.

» Monday, March 20, 2006

Loans

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries