Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Spokesman on: Sports Reception, PBR Cabinet and Fire Dispute.
Sports Reception
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister and Tessa Jowell would be hosting a sports reception at Lancaster House this evening. The purpose of the event was to recognise sporting achievements in 2002. They would be joined by Patrick Carter, who, it had been announced today, was the new Chairman of Sport England. More than 100 champions - Olympic, Paralympic, World and Commonwealth - from around thirty sports would also attend the reception.
PBR Cabinet
The PMOS advised journalists that the Prime Minister had chaired a special Pre-Budget Report Cabinet this morning. The Chancellor had taken the opportunity to explain the context for the PBR. He had said that twenty of the world’s leading economies, accounting for 60% of world output, were in, or just out of, recession. We were seeing the sharpest slowdown in global economic activity for almost thirty years. World trade, which had grown by 13% two years ago, was at a standstill last year and was hardly growing this year. But despite these difficulties in the world economy, the UK was better placed to cope than it had been in the past - but this had only been possible because of the tough decisions taken over the past five years to keep inflation down and keep the public finances on a sound footing. The Government would not be diverted from our tough and disciplined approach and there would be no risks with economic stability. The PMOS said that the Prime Minister had underlined the Chancellor’s comments by saying that we were in a stronger position than any other major country. On inflation, interest rates and unemployment, we were in a better position than we had been in for decades. However, tougher time world-wide underlined the need for stability, and obviously that had implications for current pay events.
Asked why the Chancellor hadn’t spotted the world economic downturn coming when he had made his predictions last year, the PMOS said that while he had no intention of pre-empting the PBR Statement today, journalists could assume that the Chancellor would address that issue this afternoon.
Asked to comment on suggestions that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were barely on speaking terms and that they were ‘inhabiting parallel universes’, the PMOS said that there had been a very amiable atmosphere around the Cabinet table this morning. Put to him that tension between the two was beginning to show, the PMOS said that the Government was used to newspaper reports about such things. It was a fact of life. We simply accepted it and got on with business. Put to him that he wasn’t denying the stories were true, the PMOS repeated that the atmosphere around the Cabinet table this morning had been very amiable. Responding to a request to answer the question being put, the PMOS said that the Cabinet had congratulated the Chancellor on his handling of the economy. He urged people not to focus on the newspaper stories, but on the essential strengths which had allowed this country to survive the tough times in the world economy better than any other country. That would be reflected in the Chancellor’s Statement to Parliament this afternoon. Pressed as to whether media reports regarding the relationship between the Prime Minister and Chancellor were true, the PMOS declined to comment on newspaper reports. He said he was focussing on the fundamentals of the economy and suggested that others did the same.
Asked why the Cabinet had congratulated the Chancellor on his handling of the economy when he had over-estimated growth prospects and under-estimated tax revenues, the PMOS said that Ministers had congratulated the Chancellor because we had survived the sharpest slowdown in global activity for thirty years better than any other major country. Our inflation, interest rates and unemployment levels were all better now than they had been for decades. Put to him that this was a result of the Government’s economic policy in the first three years but that we were now in the middle of an economic cycle in which we were committed to an economic forecast predicated on growth figures which had ‘come off the rails’, the PMOS said that the Chancellor would address these matters in his Statement this afternoon. In the meantime, people should not lose sight of the fact that inflation, interest rates and unemployment levels in the UK were all better now than they had been for decades. Put to him that the economic slowdown in 1990-1 had been much sharper than the current slowdown and that the Japanese economy was actually in better shape than ours, the PMOS said he believed that information to be incorrect. However, as he wasn’t an economic expert, he would allow journalists to argue it out with the Treasury.
Fire Dispute
Asked about the role of the Deputy Prime Minister in the fire dispute, the PMOS said that Mr Prescott had enjoyed the strong support of the Cabinet throughout the fire dispute, and that remained the case unequivocally. It was important to recognise that the Deputy Prime Minister had simply been stating the demographic fact yesterday that 20% of fire-fighters were due to retire in the next two to three years. That did not mean, however, that we foresaw a reduction in staffing levels of that level. As we had said from the outset, if the fire-fighters wanted to put in a 40% pay claim, they should not be surprised that we wanted to take a strategic overview of the fire service - and that had been the purpose of the Bain Review. Our starting point was not to consider what sort of fire service we had historically inherited, but to consider what was the best fire service that could be provided to the public in the most efficient way and with regard to value for money. As the Prime Minister had said on Monday, given the size of the FBU’s pay claim, it was inevitable that we would end up looking at the fire service’s working practices. That should have come as no surprise to anybody.
Put to him that it had been ‘extremely clumsy’ of the Deputy Prime Minister not to have clarified his point relating to the retirement of 20% of fire fighters in the next two to three years, the PMOS said he would disagree. He repeated that the Mr Prescott had simply been stating the demographic fact that 20% of fire-fighters were due to retire within the next two or three years. He had not said that 20% of jobs would be lost. He had also made the point that we had been given an opportunity to undertake a strategic overview of the fire service, and that was precisely what Professor Bain was doing. Put to him repeatedly that the Deputy Prime Minister had been the one to draw attention to the 20% figure and that he had done nothing to dissuade journalists from thinking that 10,000 jobs in the fire service would be lost, the PMOS said that he could not be held responsible if journalists persuaded themselves that Mr Prescott had stated something when he hadn’t. Challenged that it was up to Mr Prescott to clarify his words, the PMOS said that Mr Prescott had been answering a question put to him by an MP, not a journalist. All he had said was that 20% of fire-fighters were due to retire. That was a fact. He had not said, contrary to the way that some had interpreted his words, that 10,000 jobs would go. He had, however, made the point that it was inevitable that a 40% pay claim would trigger an overview of the fire service - and that, in turn, would mean that working practices, including staffing levels, would come under scrutiny.
Asked to explain why the Government had felt it necessary to ask Professor Bain to undertake another review of the fire service when Mike O’Brien had published a draft White Paper in 2001 which had stated that the fire service was a modern successful public service which required heavy investment, the PMOS repeated that if the FBU demanded a 40% pay hike, they should not be surprised if we wanted to undertake a fundamental examination of the fire service. Nor should they be surprised if the Prime Minister asked for a report on the apparent success of the joint control rooms being run by the military during the strikes. Nor should they be surprised if we wanted a review of shift patterns to ensure more flexible working. And nor should they be surprised if we asked questions regarding the possibility of fire-fighters using defibrillators and being trained up as paramedics. We had asked Professor Bain to undertake a strategic review of the fire service. We had given the FBU every opportunity to influence that overview but unfortunately they had decided not to co-operate with it. Pressed as to why we had felt it necessary to establish a strategic overview as a ’short term knee-jerk reaction’ to a 40% wage claim when Mike O’Brien had carried one out only twelve months ago, the PMOS pointed out that a strategic overview was precisely the reverse of a short term knee-jerk response. The Bain inquiry was a fundamental review which had addressed important issues relating to the fire service, and Professor Bain and his team had come up with a rational analysis. People should consider it carefully before jumping to conclusions and spouting forth about percentages of pay increases and staffing reductions.
Pressed repeatedly as to whether the Government envisaged a smaller fire service as part of an efficiency drive, the PMOS said that it was important to look at the issue from the right end of the telescope. A modernisation process did not begin with announcing a precise figure in terms of staff reductions. Rather, it began with the question as to precisely what fire service was needed. Of course that was not to say that the issue of staffing levels would not be looked at. They would be eventually - and no one was pretending otherwise. However, it was pointless to talk about job losses amounting to 20% of the fire service because nothing had been agreed and we simply didn’t know.
Asked if he would agree that the dispute had become even more acrimonious over the last twenty-four hours because of the Deputy Prime Minister’s inability to articulate the Government’s policy, the PMOS said no. Asked to provide some hope that the Government was actively engaged in trying to bring about a resolution rather than stoking it up either deliberately or through incompetence, the PMOS declined to rise to any of the baits contained in the question being posed. He said that we were helping the employers to examine where savings could be made. As the Prime Minister had pointed out on Monday, if the FBU wanted to put in a 40% pay demand, they should not be surprised if the Government wanted to take a fundamental look at the structure of the fire service in order to ascertain whether it met modern needs or whether it was time to undertake a rational strategic overview so as to ensure it operated in the most efficient and effective way. Asked if he was implying that the modernisation agenda had only been raised because of the 40% pay claim by the FBU, the PMOS said there had always been issues which had needed to be addressed. As the Bain Review had pointed out, successive Governments, successive local government employers and successive union leaders should have faced up to these issues earlier. We accepted that implicit criticism. However, the reality was that it was the very high level of the claim which had resulted in the fundamental review which had taken place - and obviously that had implications for the type of questions which were now being asked. Put to him that the fire-fighters believed that the Government had planned job losses all along, the PMOS said that we had dealt with this issue at the weekend. At a time of heightened international concern over terrorism, at a time of potential conflict with Iraq and at a time when the world economy was going through a difficult period, the idea that we would choose this time to seek a fight with the fire-fighters was ludicrous. It had been the nature of the claim and the extent of the claim which had forced us to establish a fundamental review.
Asked to explain why we thought it was better for fire-fighters, rather than trained paramedics or doctors, to use defibrillators, the PMOS said it was not a case of either/or. There was no doubt that defibrillators saved lives. Given the fact that fire-fighters could conceivably be the first at the scene of an incident, surely it made sense for them to undergo basic medical training.
Asked about Nick Raynsford’s meeting with the local authority employers today, the PMOS said that the purpose was to talk through the savings issue and to encourage them in that process. As he understood it, progress was being made on that front.
Asked if the employers’ efforts to streamline their negotiating team were going well, the PMOS said that this was a matter for the employers, not him. Put to him that it was the Government which had called for the streamlining in the first place, the PMOS agreed but pointed out that the employers continued to be responsible for their own negotiating teams. Asked if he was implying that the employers had not yet managed to reorganise themselves, the PMOS said that it was not for the Government to dictate to the local authorities what they should and should not do. We did, however, have a role to play in encouraging them. Of course we wanted to see a streamlined negotiating team and it was clear that progress was being made. In the end, however, the discussions between the employers and the FBU were important and people should allow them to continue. Asked for a reaction to the FBU’s assertion that they had been negotiating with only three people in any event and that the Government’s request to streamline the employers’ negotiating team was slowing down the whole process, the PMOS said that even though the FBU might have been negotiating directly with three representatives from the employers, the reporting back committee had comprised some forty people. It was impossible to conduct negotiations in this outdated manner. Put to him that the Government should be directly involved in attempts to settle the dispute by taking part in the negotiations rather than relying on the reporting back process, the PMOS said that Downing Street was only involved because the employers had said that they wanted more money from the Government to fund a further pay rise. It was therefore sensible for Nick Raynsford to meet them today so that he could point out to them where savings could be made through modernisation. Moreover, if we were to be involved directly in this dispute, we would have to become involved in every local authority disagreement. Local authorities were locally accountable. We should not be put in a position where people might think that we were dictating local council rates for example.
Questioned about the military’s apparent success in operating joint control rooms during the current fire strike, the PMOS said that, as always, we were reluctant to give any impression that everything was fine because it only took one incident to change the situation. That said, the anecdotal evidence was that the military were coping well and that joint control rooms were proving to be a success in allowing greater co-operation between the emergency services. It was for that reason that we regretted the FBU’s decision to block similar centres around the country, such as that in Wiltshire, despite the support of local fire-fighters.
Asked when the employers and FBU would resume their negotiations, the PMOS said that it was entirely a matter for them. We hoped it would be as soon as possible. Obviously we wanted the employers to take time to think through their position and identify ways that savings could be made through modernisation. Clearly, therefore, there was a balance to be struck between resuming the talks as quickly as possible and doing so with a properly thought through plan, rather than simply meeting for the sake of it.
delicious
digg
facebook
