Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Teacher Training, Fire Dispute, War or Terror/UK and Top-up Fees.
Teacher Training
The PMOS drew journalists’ attention to the latest teacher training recruitment statistics which had been published by David Miliband today. They were positive figures showing a 7% increase in the number of people going into the teaching profession. This included people switching from other jobs, as well as new graduates.
Fire Dispute
The PMOS briefed journalists on interesting figures released by COBRA. During the 48-hour strike period last week, the total number of callouts had been around 2,000, compared to 5,500 in a normal 48-hour period. It showed that, with the exception of a mindless minority of hoax callers, the public had behaved extremely responsibly and had heeded the fire safety advice which had been issued in the run-up to the strike, for which we were obviously very grateful. It also showed that the military had coped well within their planned capacity.
The PMOS said that ODPM and FBU officials were meeting this morning to discuss the issue of safety. If followed a letter which we had received on Friday from the FBU who had asked to talk about the issue with us. Andy Gilchrist, the FBU leader, had just arrived at the meeting, and the Deputy Prime Minister was due to join them shortly. Questioned as to whether the issue of pay would be discussed, the PMOS said that Mr Prescott would discuss safety in the context of the FBU’s communication with the Government on Friday and whether and how they could come to an agreement within the TUC’s Code of Conduct. He would do all he could to encourage them to return to the negotiating table. Whilst the actual negotiation was not a matter for the Government, it remained the Government’s duty to do all it could to encourage people to talk, and that was precisely what it was doing.
Asked if it was wise for John Prescott to get partially involved in the pay negotiations, the PMOS repeated that Mr Prescott was not, in fact, involved in the negotiations. The issue was for the employers and the FBU to discuss. However, if there was a part which the Government could play in terms of trying to encourage people back to the negotiating table, then obviously that was significant. Equally, we believed it had been entirely reasonable to commission the Bain Review as an independent inquiry to find a way forward at a time when the talks had broken down. Asked if Downing Street was worried that the going rate for pay rises in the public services was now 4% at the very least, the PMOS said that it was for the review bodies to take evidence from Government and the unions and then make their own recommendations.
In answer to questions about the modernisation of the fire service, the PMOS said that when we talked about additional funding and an 11% pay rise over two years, we were also talking about changes in working practices that were essential if we were to have a modern fire service. No one was paying lip service to modernisation. We were absolutely serious that additional funding had to be matched by reform. As the Bain Review had pointed out, there were a number of practices which were outmoded and which were ripe for change. Consequently, we did not think that the public would regard proposals for modernisation as unreasonable. The outdated practices, which the union was resisting, were holding fire-fighters back from offering an improved service to the public. For example, the Bain Review recommended the ending of the ban on mixed crewing which prevented part-time and full-time fire-fighters crewing the same appliances. It had also recommended joint control rooms with other emergency services to improve efficiency in dealing with incidents. It had also suggested allowing fire-fighters to train as paramedics, undertaking basic life-saving if they happened to arrive on the scene of an incident first. The Review had also proposed the deployment of resources to reflect the pattern of risk of an incident, ending the ban on pre-planned overtime, and taking measures to boost diversity and flexibility - for example by considering alternative shift patterns to those currently used i.e. more part-time workers and family-friendly working. The Bain proposals had not come out of the blue. An Audit Commission report in 1995 had recommended a review of station crewing following changes in risk categorisation, limiting stand down time, reviewing flexible duty, matching control room staffing more closely with workload and sharing control room facilities with other brigades, amongst other things. There was a negotiation process between the employers and the FBU which we hoped would begin again this week. We would urge the FBU to call off its planned eight-day strike, due to start this Friday, so as to allow the negotiation to take place without the threat of industrial action. In the end, it was important to recognise that you could not de-couple modernisation and changes to working practices from any pay discussion.
Asked if we were determined to introduce the changes to the fire service regardless of what happened with the pay negotiations, the PMOS said it was absolutely clear that there needed to be a deal, and the modernisation of working practices - which had remained unchanged since the Silver Jubilee - had to be part of that. Asked if we wanted to implement all the changes or whether just one would do, the PMOS said that the Bain Review had set out a package of measures which could lead to additional funding. It was not a question of cherry-picking elements of the recommendations. Pressed as to whether we were determined to modernise the fire service from top to bottom, the PMOS said that these were issues which had to be addressed as part of the negotiations. He was simply making the point that an 11% pay rise over two years had to be linked to changes in working practices. It should not be the case that only the fire service was immune from reform in the public sector. If some of the measures proposed by Bain were introduced, it would mean that fire-fighters would be allowed to do their jobs in a more flexible way. That had to be a good thing for them, as well as for the public. Questioned as to whether jobs in the fire service would need to go in order to finance the changes we wanted to introduce, the PMOS said he was not conducting the negotiations.
Asked to comment on reports that the Government had blocked a 16% pay deal in the summer, the PMOS said that Ministers had denied the suggestion repeatedly, although it continued to be ‘paraded around the paddock’ for some reason. The LGA’s Charles Nolda had been interviewed on the Today Programme this morning. He had been asked directly whether the Government had prevented the employers from offering 16%, and he had said no. Just because something was repeated over and over again did not make it any truer. The overall pay envelope for local authorities had been set out. That envelope was sealed. There was no more money. The Government had already set out its public spending plans. It was for the employers to discuss with the FBU whether there was scope within that to link further reform to any further pay. That was for them to sit down and work through. The Bain Review had set out a perfectly sensible and realistic basis upon which the negotiations should restart, and we hoped that that they would.
Questioned as to whether the 11% figure might in fact go up given Mr Nolda had appeared not to rule out the possibility this morning, the PMOS pointed out that the Government was not involved in the negotiation. All he was saying was that the overall sum of money available to local authorities was fixed. The FBU had indicated at the end of last week that they had their own plans for modernisation. We hadn’t heard them say that before. They might wish to sit down and discuss their proposals and where that might lead. That was up to them. Nevertheless, the Bain figures were around twice the level of inflation this year and would probably be three times the level next year. It was therefore not an unreasonable basis for a negotiation process. Change was as big a part as money.
Asked about the impact on pay claims across the public sector, the PMOS said that Sir Eddie George, the Governor of the Bank of England had answered this point extremely cogently yesterday, and the Chancellor would no doubt do the same during the debate on the Queen’s Speech today. If we reached the point where we let public sector pay rip regardless of the economic situation, there would inevitably be a severe impact on inflation, interest rates and employment. The Government was not going to put at risk the hard-won economic stability which people in this county were enjoying. We acknowledged that fire-fighters did an extraordinary job. However, we also had to accept that working practices, which had been ossified for twenty five years, needed to change. The fire service was a public service where there were forty applicants for every vacancy. That did not indicate a service in crisis. It needed to be modernised in order to provide a better service for the public as a whole.
Questioned as to whether the prospect of additional money for three years’ time - after the next public spending round - might be included in the discussions between the employers and the FBU, the PMOS said he wasn’t going to rule anything in or out. He was not going to say year 3 was off the table. It was up to the employers and the FBU to sit down and have a discussion. The only way these issues were going to resolved was through a negotiated settlement. He was making the point that people had to understand that the issue of pay could not be divorced from the issue of change. Pressed further, the PMOS said that as he had made clear, that the spending envelope - as set out by the Government - was the spending envelope. There was no more money. He had no intention of getting into a discussion as to what the next CSR might look like.
Put to him that the Government appeared to be sending a mixed message in light of the Chancellor’s insistence that there would be no more money and John Prescott’s comment yesterday that the Government could make an exceptional case as long as it was linked to modernisation, the PMOS said that he would dispute the premise of the question absolutely. Mr Prescott had been making the quite reasonable point, which was entirely consistent with everything else being said, that if additional money was to be found it had to be tied to reform. That was common sense. The Government was speaking with one voice. And the only way that could happen was if the two sides got together to negotiate. Asked if he was implying that the reforms had to be self-financing, the PMOS repeated that the overall settlement of the local authorities was the overall settlement and it was in that context that the employers had to make their judgements. We were not the ones who were conducting the negotiations.
War or Terror/UK
Questioned about reports in yesterday’s papers concerning the arrest of three people who had been planning a gas attack on the Tube, the PMOS said that three people were appearing in court today. They had been charged last week under the Terrorism Act 2000. He pointed out that the charges had been read out in open court at Bow Street Magistrates. If the ’stringers’ at Bow Street had missed it, then that was something journalists should take up with them and not us. He added that we did not plan to give a running commentary either on intelligence issues or police and security service operations. The media needed to recognise that there was an ongoing court case and that they had to be careful before publishing anything - either true or false - which could possibly jeopardise it. We certainly had no intention of contributing to any such prospect. The big issue here was, as the Prime Minister had said in his Lord Mayor’s Banquet speech last week, that the Government would do whatever it had to do to address the heightened threat from terrorism. Where there was specific intelligence, we would act to thwart it directly. The Deputy Prime Minister had been asked questions about this particular matter yesterday. As the three who had been arrested were in court today, he did not intend to say anything further about it. Journalists had their job to do, we had ours. He repeated that we did not plan to give a running commentary on intelligence matters.
Pressed repeatedly to confirm whether there was any evidence that a gas attack on the Tube had been planned, the PMOS said that if the Government felt it necessary to close down any part of the country’s infrastructure in order to protect the public, it would do so without hesitation. Equally, if we thought it necessary to warn the public about a likely attack or specific threat, we would do so without delay. That said, we had to be mindful of the need to ensure that we did not do the terrorists’ job for them by creating unnecessary panic. We also had to make sure that we did not jeopardise court cases which were in progress. Whilst there might be a desire in some parts of the media to publish any intelligence material, it was important for journalists to question whether this would assist the efforts underway to counter terrorism, given such reporting could jeopardise sources and put future intelligence gathering at risk. He added that he understood why he was being asked these questions. However, it was equally important for journalists to understand that there was a limitation to what he could say about the matter.
Asked if Downing Street regreted the fact that the type of information which had been splashed over the front pages of yesterday’s papers had been made public and whether we had any idea where it had come from, the PMOS repeated that we would rather there wasn’t this spray of information, some of which had bordered on the fanciful, in the newspapers. It was important for people to exercise care. The Government would issue warnings and take action if or when it had to do so. However, if those warnings were to have an impact, and in order for the public to heed them, we had to ensure that they were heard. Self evidently, a continuous flurry of ‘intelligence-based stories’, would affect people’s receptiveness. Asked if he was implying that yesterday’s stories were the result of irresponsible press reporting or irresponsible briefings from security sources, the PMOS said that he had no intention of getting drawn into criticism of the press. He was simply making the point that whilst we accepted journalists had a job to do, they should accept that we too had a job to do. As a result, there would obviously be some tension and flux between us. The three arrested men had been charged in open court last week. That fact had appeared in the Sunday papers. If people then chose to embellish it there wasn’t a huge amount we could do about it.
Asked if there was a direct connection between the warnings the Government had issued in the last few days and the arrest of the three men on terrorism charges, the PMOS said that the arrests were an indication of the heightened terrorism threat. However, we were not being complacent in any way. Just because some people had been charged with terrorism offences did not mean that the threat had gone away. There was still a heightened terrorist threat and a continuing need for vigilance. We had to accept that the global threat from terrorism was ever present. The Government’s role was to do what we could wherever we could to counter it - and that was exactly what we were doing.
Asked repeatedly why he was refusing today to confirm or deny whether the three arrests had any connection with reports of a planned gas attack on the Tube, given the fact that John Prescott had denied it absolutely yesterday, the PMOS said that the Deputy Prime Minister was a senior member of the Government and obviously spoke with its full authority. Pressed as to whether we stood by John Prescott’s comment yesterday, the PMOS said that he had already answered the question - yes. The Deputy Prime Minister was a senior figure in the Government. If he was interviewed on a programme like Frost, people could assume that he was speaking with authority. Challenged that he, as the Official Spokesman, was speaking with authority too, and therefore there was no reason for him to duck the questions being asked, the PMOS said that on a day when people who had been arrested on charges of terrorism were appearing in court, he was simply being mindful of the need to exercise some discretion. He was sorry if that was inconvenient for journalists, but that was the reality of the situation.
Questioned as to whether we would warn the public if we received a credible threat of a terrorist strike on the London Underground or any channel port, the PMOS said that as Jack Straw had pointed out yesterday, intelligence did not come in neat packages. Just as important as the collection of intelligence was the assessment of it. If the Government believed that it was necessary to take a particular course of action, either in warning the public or in closing down part of the country’s infrastructure, we would do so without hesitation because public safety would always be paramount. However, we had to make sure that we were not doing the terrorists’ job for them. Three people had been arrested under the Terrorism Act. That in itself was a very strong indication that action was being taken, where it was thought to be appropriate, to deal with potential threats. Asked if he was implying that we had received intelligence of a possible attack on the Tube but that we had taken a judgement that it had not been strong enough for us to issue a warning, the PMOS said that the three arrested men were appearing in court today and it would not be helpful to the prosecution if we were to say anything further about the matter.
Asked whether the Government would make a Statement to the House on the issue, as requested by the Shadow Home Secretary, the PMOS said no. He pointed out that the Government had published a document to Parliament ten days ago on the subject of counter terrorism. The Prime Minister had also made a speech on the issue at last Monday’s Lord Mayor’s Banquet. If we had anything further to add, we would do so. The Government, intelligence services and the police all had a real job to do to counter the threat of terrorism. We would act as we saw fit and in a way that we regarded as appropriate.
Top-Up Fees
Asked whether Clare Short would receive a ‘ticking off’ for her comments on top-up fees, the PMOS said that Ms Short had been asked a question on the subject in a wide-ranging interview and she had answered it. She had acknowledged that university funding was a real issue which needed to be addressed. People had to face up to the fact that we did not get world-class universities on the cheap. We had to look at how we could get extra investment into our universities to ensure that they could compete globally. A review was ongoing and was due to report in January. He was not going to pre-judge it, but people had to accept that whatever solution might be found to the funding problem, it was going to raise difficult issues and choices. There was no point pretending otherwise. Asked whether the conclusions of the review might show that Ms Short had been right to speak out against top-up fees, the PMOS said that we would await the outcome the review in January.
Asked whether there was a debate in Cabinet about the issue, the PMOS said that there was always vibrant debate within Government about all sorts of different things, as journalists knew well. Asked if the Prime Minister was relaxed about senior Ministers expressing different views on what was clearly a major policy area, the PMOS said it indicated the understanding within Government that there was a nettle that had to be grasped. How that might happen was a question we would only get a clearer answer to in January.
delicious
digg
facebook
