Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Iain Duncan Smith, Fire Dispute and War on Terror/UK.
Iain Duncan Smith
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister would be meeting the Opposition Leader at 5pm this afternoon on Privy Council terms. He pointed out that the Prime Minister had met Charles Kennedy last Thursday and the invitation had been extended to Mr Duncan Smith. Today’s meeting would focus on the issue of terrorism. Put to him that the Opposition was saying that they were the ones who had requested a meeting, the PMOS said he had no wish to get into a who had invited whom and when story. Mr Kennedy had met the Prime Minister last week. Mr Duncan Smith had also been invited to Downing Street for a meeting. A convenient time for him to come in was today. Asked what they would discuss, the PMOS said that it was a Privy Council meeting.
Fire Dispute
The PMOS advised journalists that the Deputy Prime Minister had met Andy Gilchrist this morning following a meeting between FBU and ODPM officials about the issue of safety. The meeting followed a request from the FBU to discuss this issue. The two sides had still not reached an agreement, although obviously we welcomed the FBU’s willingness to engage. The test of progress could only be judged by whether an agreement on safety issues could be reached should there be another fire strike. We hoped that the union would abide by the 1979 TUC Code of Conduct. In terms of other meetings taking place, the PMOS said that the FBU Executive had had a meeting this afternoon at 3pm. We also continued to hope that they would restart round-table negotiations with the employers as soon as possible. Asked whether that might happen tomorrow, the PMOS said that it was a matter for the FBU and the employers. Obviously, the sooner the better.
Put to him that the real test of progress was the abandonment of the eight-day fire-fighters’ strike due to begin this Friday, the PMOS said yes, absolutely. We were having to put in place our contingency plans. The way to avoid this issue arising in the first place was to call off a strike which we believed was dangerous and irresponsible. Asked if he was implying that simply restarting negotiations, rather than reaching a full settlement, would be enough to call off a strike, the PMOS said that as the Deputy Prime Minister had pointed out yesterday, the only way this issue was going to be resolved was through negotiation and discussion. It was far better for that to happen without the threat of industrial action. In the end, however, it was a decision for the FBU.
Asked if Sir Eddie George was right to be worried that public sector inflationary pay could put at risk the fundamentals of the British economy, the PMOS said that Sir Eddie George had been making the point, as the Chancellor would do shortly in the House, that when reaching pay settlements we had to be mindful of the wider economy. There was no use in making hyper-inflationary pay settlements if you put at risk the economic stability, low interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment which we currently enjoyed. He thought that the public and people working in the public sector would agree that it would be a pretty short term palliative to give large pay awards in the public sector where there was no link whatsoever to modernisation and change which would, in turn, simply result in large numbers of people losing their jobs.
Put to him that the Bain Review’s 11% pay offer was hyper-inflationary and fell foul of Sir Eddie George’s ‘diagnosis’, the PMOS said that the Bain Review had made clear that pay and modernisation were inextricably linked. There were working practices which had remained unchanged for over twenty five years. Any additional pay, therefore, would mean having to look at whether there were any efficiency savings which could be found within the current arrangements operating in the fire service.
Questioned as to whether today’s meeting between John Prescott and Andy Gilchrist had discussed anything other than safety, the PMOS said that it was not for the Government to conduct the negotiations between the employers and FBU. However, as a responsible Government, we were doing what we could to encourage people to talk. The only way the issue was going to be settled was by the employers and FBU sitting down together to discuss the issues. If there was anything we could do to encourage and exhort, then we would do it. Questioned further about the Government’s role, the PMOS said that we had a locus in terms of safety because we had to know the view of the FBU in order to make contingency arrangements in the event of a strike. Although an agreement had not been reached yet, the union had indicated a willingness to continue to talk.
Asked again about the prospect of a deal that went beyond year 2, the PMOS said that no one was ruling it out. However, it was for the employers and the FBU to discuss. If that was what people wanted to talk about, then they were perfectly entitled to do so as long as they stuck to the local authorities’ overall pay envelope. Ultimately, however, a longer term settlement underlined the need for awards to be linked to changes in working practices, as he had explained at some length this morning.
War on Terror/UK
Asked if there were any plans for a clearer statement to people about the threat to public safety, the PMOS said that the position remained as set out by the Prime Minister last week. Put to him that the position wasn’t the same, as evidence by the Prime Minister’s meeting with the Opposition Leader today, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister met the Leader of the Opposition from time to time to update him on Privy Council terms about a range of issues. That was perfectly normal. Questioned further, the PMOS said we had acknowledged consistently that there was a heightened threat. As the Prime Minister had said last week, we had to make difficult judgements in terms of assessing the intelligence we received, how we acted on it, what we made public and if so, when. We had to be mindful of the need not to do the terrorists’ job for them by alarming people unnecessarily. Yes, some people had been arrested. That showed that the police and security services were doing their job. At the same time, just because arrests had been made did not mean that the Government had to put out a statement or comment on every piece of speculation about intelligence that flowed in and out of the media.
Asked if there were any plans for a Parliamentary Statement, the PMOS said no. The Government had a job to do and would do it in the way it felt was appropriate. Put to him that the Government was elected by the public, the PMOS said he would agree and would also add that it had a responsibility for public safety and also did not want to create public alarm unnecessarily. Consequently, we had to make judgements and would continue to do so.
Asked for a reaction to the Evening Standard’s ‘Tube on High Alert’ story today in which he had been quoted as saying that people should remain vigilant, the PMOS said he had been making the point this morning that he was not going to comment on the three men who had been arrested on terrorism charges, not least because that could jeopardise their trial. He had simply been pointing out that the very fact of their arrest did not lessen the need for vigilance. Questioned about the ‘three suspects’ who hadn’t been arrested, the PMOS said he had not commented on that particular thread and did not plan to. If the Government was to set up a website - a sort of www.latestintelligence.com - which was what some people appeared to be suggesting we did, then obviously there would be a huge amount of material that people could read on it. However, within a month it would contain absolutely no information because it would compromise all our intelligence sources and be totally counter-productive. We believed that the public understood this point very well and had faith that the Government would act without hesitation if it needed to close any part of the country’s infrastructure or if it needed to issue a warning. However, what it would not do was give a running commentary on intelligence just because of stories that appeared in the newspapers. The three men in question had been charged in open court last week. No one had attempted to prevent that being publicised. The fact that it had been ignored by reporters based at Bow Street said more about the media-based than it did about us.
delicious
digg
facebook
