Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Carbon emissions/offsetting, minimum wage, Prime Ministerial meetings, overseas convictions, specialist schools, Somalia, Northern Ireland and Russia/Belarus
Carbon emissions/offsetting
Asked what the Prime Minister’s response was to Jonathan Porritt’s suggestion that the approach to the issue of global warming was patchy and muddled, the Prime Minister’s Offical Spokesman (PMOS) said that it was not muddled headed to double our compliance with our Kyoto target; it was not muddled headed to produce an energy review which allows us to develop clean technology; it was not muddle headed to lead the intellectual debate on climate change at Gleneagles and then take this forward with the Gleneagles dialogue which will then produce recommendations which the Japanese will be able to take forward when they take over the G8 Presidency in 2008. It was also not muddle headed to face up to the reality that if we have a growing world economy, that gave us the resources to invest in the research and development (R&D) which will produce more effective and efficient energy uses than if we don’t have that investment to put into the necessary R & D.
Asked if the Prime Minister thought it was his responsibility to take the tough decisions on climate change, the PMOS said that as he had said this morning, the Prime Minister’s approach to the whole energy/climate change debate had been that we took whatever domestic measures we could to improve energy efficiency and we were doing that by supporting bio-fuels, doubling our Kyoto target on emissions, or on the international level, by supporting the inclusion of aircraft emissions in the EU trading schemes. The question should be put into the overall context of: was it more likely people would give the economic support for R & D into new technology to allow the climate change issue to be addressed and produce new technology that would do so in a world economy that was growing or one that was declining? The Prime Minister’s answer had always been that investment was much more likely in a world economy that was growing.
If the world economy was not growing, then you would be harming developing nations and stopping them growing, and that would mean they would end up paying the price for problems they were not the cause of. Therefore, there was an overall philosophical issue about the approach to the climate change issue which underlined everything the Prime Minister did.
Asked by the Daily Telegraph’s political editor if the Prime Minister did not believe that he individually should "set a good example" to people, for example, by not buying a large car or by taking long-haul flights, the PMOS said that what the journalist was presenting was a series of false choices. Should people make their home more energy efficient? Answer: yes. Should people be encouraged to use biofuels? Answer: yes. Should aircraft emissions be included as part of the EU trading scheme? Answer: yes. Should time and commitment be spent on pushing for an international consensus on climate change? Answer: yes. All those were personal, private decisions, and there was no false choice. For example, Downing Street was as energy efficient as possible. Should people offset their travel? The Prime Minister had asked for his recent trip to Miami to be offset. Overall, those choices were put in context of what was the best way to get the investment in new technology that was necessary if people were seriously going to address worldwide the effects of climate change. That was in a growing world economy that could invest in the R&D that was necessary.
Put that the official flights were offset, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had now asked for his personal flights to be offset as well.
Asked who the Prime Minister had asked, the PMOS replied there were people in No10 who were responsible for that.
Asked who paid for the offsetting, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister would personally be responsible.
Asked further about the manner of offsetting, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister was now ready to offset all his personal flights from now on. This included the Miami flight. The PMOS explained to the lobby that offsetting meant that in terms of the carbon emissions from travel, it was then invested in green projects, for example, planting trees etc. The Government’s aim was to be carbon neutral by 2012.
Asked why the Prime Minister had only started to offset his travel on his most recent holiday, the PMOS replied that these were all things that had become at an individual level more possible as they went on.
Asked if it was normal for all bookings and arrangements of the Prime Minister’s holidays to be carried out by officials, the PMOS said that he did not get into the processology.
Put that the PMOS had got into the processology by mentioning the offsetting of the Prime Minister’s flight, and he had already dipped "one toe" into the processology, the PMOS said that little tiny toe was all he was going to do!
Asked how much the offsetting would cost for 5 people, the PMOS said again that he was not going to get into processology.
Asked if the Prime Minister was encouraging his Cabinet colleagues to do the same with regards to offsetting their travel, the PMOS replied that it was a matter for them.
Asked to clarify whether the Prime Minister was offsetting his own travel, or that of the whole family, the PMOS said that it was his personal travel, but the PMOS was not going to get involved further.
Asked that on the cost of the offsetting, would it not be a great incentive to other holiday makers in Florida if they knew how much they could save the environment in terms of cost, the PMOS replied that the question was a very inventive way of trying to get round the PMOS’ ban, but much as he admired the invention, the answer remained the same.
Asked by BBC24 if the Prime Minister was aware that offsetting was now quite a controversial issue, because by growing trees in southern climes, ice was replaced, and the ice reflected heat back, therefore, contributing to global warming, and was the Prime Minister aware of this, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister was aware that this was a subject on which it was difficult to make any move without there being somebody who said you were wrong. Equally, the Prime Minister was aware that offsetting was an internationally accepted mechanism.
Asked when had the Prime Minister asked for his flights to be offset, the PMOS said earlier this week.
Asked if this meant that the Prime Minister was actively encouraging people to fly to encourage economic growth, the PMOS replied that what the Prime Minister was saying was the we had to look at this issue in the round. The PMOS said that if there was a situation where worldwide tourism stopped, what would be the impact on developing countries? It would be to reduce the global economy. If the global economy was reduced, was it more or less likely that money would be spent on R&D into new technology? The answer was obvious.
Asked why had the Prime Minister decided to offset his travel, the PMOS said that it was the logical extension of the decision to include all official Ministerial travel which we had announced some time ago.
Asked if all Government offsetting was paid for by the Government, the PMOS said that it was.
Asked if the Prime Minister could determine how his flight was being offset, ie, was there a "Blair wood" in Scotland being grown from his offsetting, the PMOS replied that he was not going to give the journalist an obvious byline story for the Scottish media!
Asked by the Evening Standard if No10’s meat came from non-flatulent sources, the PMOS said that there was a reply that went something along the lines of that this was nothing to do with the lobby!
Put by the Daily Telegraph’s political editor was this not something of an empty gesture, as was the Prime Minister likely to take another holiday between now and when he left in the summer, so he would only be offsetting one holiday, the PMOS replied that if ever the phrase "wanting one’s cake and eating it" came into play, now would be the time. The PMOS said that in one moment, the journalist had accused the Prime Minister of doing nothing personal for climate change, and whenever the PMOS told people that he was doing something personal, it was then classed as an empty gesture.
Asked if the Prime Minister would continue to offset his personal air travel after he left Downing Street, the PMOS replied that he was the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman and he was not the spokesman for whenever/if Mr. Blair stepped down as Prime Minister.
Asked if the Prime Minister had cleared his offsetting with the Chancellor, the PMOS said that it was a personal decision.
Minimum wage
Asked if a £200 fine on employers was a real incentive to pay the minimum wage, the PMOS said that no employer liked to find themselves going through the courts or liked to find themselves fined. Therefore, the fines were a disincentive and the important thing was to look at the number of employers who did comply with the minimum wage and the real difference that it had made to lots of low paid workers.
Asked if the fact that more than £3 million pounds had been collected by enforcement teams in unpaid wages over 2006 was a guiding issue in racking up the fines, the PMOS said that what was important was the signal it sent to individuals as a whole that we did take this seriously, that we would enforce the regulations, and that we did believe that people should be paid the minimum wage where necessary.
Prime Ministerial meetings
Asked if there was a deliberate reason why the parliamentary lobby had not been told about the housing breakfast the Prime Minister and Ruth Kelly hosted this morning, the PMOS said no, the same practice had been followed with similar breakfast events week in, week out.
Asked again why it had not been mentioned, the PMOS said that it was not a common practice to constantly preview breakfasts that he has with various groups. Asked if the breakfast was a last minute thing, the PMOS said that the meeting had been timetabled for a long time.
Overseas convictions of British Nationals
Asked if the Prime Minister had a view on the news that the Home Office had sat on files concerning British people convicted abroad, and had not entered them onto the national computer, the PMOS said that the term ’sat’ was no one he recognised. The Home Office would be issuing a statement in due course. The PMOS added that as the story was just breaking, his information was that some of the information from other countries that had been available in the past had been patchy. Secondly, this was the whole reason why the system had been regularised under the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and transferred authority to ACPO.
Asked how the Prime Minister felt, as it was eight months since he had appointed a new Home Secretary and further problems still seemed to be arising, the PMOS said he did not want to pre-empt the Home Office statement or their response. However, the Home Office was a complex department with complex problems and the Prime Minister had used the analogy of turning over the stones and finding problems, therefore the important questions was not whether there were further problems, but rather, whether those further problems were being dealt with. In terms of responsibility to ACPO last May, that was evidence that the problems were identified and were being dealt with.
Specialist schools
Asked for the Prime Minister’s response to a committee report which said that the provision of specialist school services was very patchy, the PMOS Lord Adonis had said to the LEAs that if they wanted to make any changes to the provision of specialist schools in their areas, then they had to ensure that what they replaced them with was a better service. This reflected the fact that there wasn’t a Government policy of closing specialist schools and that the rate of closures had fallen under the current administration compared to the previous one. The PMOS went on to say that there would always be a need for a mix of provision, for some children inclusion in the main stream system would be the answer, but for others, specialist schools per se would be the answer. No one answer would address the needs of every child and this was illustrated in this case. There were unique circumstances that demanded unique answers.
Put that if the unique answer the Secretary of State had chosen highlighted the fact that the provision was completely inadequate for ordinary people. Since most people did not have £15,000 a year to pay and whether the Prime Minister had asked for this to be looked at, as it was clearly a problem, the PMOS said that as Lord Adonis had said, anything that replaced a specialist school should provide a better system. There was a statementing process that could be gone through and as was said yesterday, LEAs had actually paid for children to be able to have the option that the Secretary of State had taken up in this case. The PMOS went on to say that it was difficult to answer questions without going further into the privacy of a nine year old, and as the PMOS had said this morning, he was not prepared to do that.
Asked as the Secretary of State had a made a statement, the press had a right to know, the PMOS said that the press did not have a right, because as the Secretary of State had said in her statement, she had not revealed all the details to protect the privacy of the child. The PMOS added that the privacy of a nine year old came above anything else.
The reporter again repeated his questions, adding that the PMOS’s comments were very laudable, but that the press had a right to know. The PMOS said that the reporter was quoting the Secretary of State’s statement selectively. The reporter responded by stating the press had a right to know under the Freedom of Information, the PMOS reminded the reporter about the Press Complaints Commission rules - which the Daily Mirror had chosen to ignore - which were designed to protect the privacy of a child. The reporter responded by suggesting that there was a public interest in the case and that the press had a right to question the public statement the Secretary of State had put out. The PMOS said that equally, people could not ignore that the Secretary of State had explicitly said that there was a limit to what she would be prepared to reveal to protect the privacy of her child.
Somalia
Asked if the Prime Minister had been informed or consulted by President Bush prior to the American attack on Somalia since the UK and US were partners against terrorism, the PMOS said it was a US operation aimed at those who were responsible for the 1998 terrorist operations against US forces in that area. However, it was a matter for the US.
Northern Ireland
Asked if the Prime Minister was confident that Lord Morrow and the charge he is leading against sexual orientation legislation wouldn’t affect other legislation the PMOS that equality legislation in Northern Ireland had always been separate from legislation in England. There is a consultation process going on in terms of Great Britain and we would let people know the outcome of that.
Russia/Belarus
Asked about the reliability of supply to the rest of Europe, and Chancellor Merkel in comment had said that it would not do Russia’s reputation any good, the PMOS replied that the EU at Lakhti made clear its concerns about the need for secure energy supplies. The EU was in conversation with both Russia and Belarus about this issue. The UK had taken steps recently, including agreeing a deal with Norway to try and secure supplies in the future. It was clearly an issue which was of rising concern around the world.
Asked if we were concerned, given that Russia and Belarus had a strong relationship and they had fallen out spectacularly, the PMOS replied that it would not be helpful for him to provide a running commentary on their relationship. It was enough to say that the EU was in contact with both sides, and Chancellor Merkel, as President of the EU, had expressed her concern.
delicious
digg
facebook
