Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Benefits/Truancy, Local Elections and Northern Ireland.
Benefits/Truancy
Asked how many benefits would be affected by the Government’s proposals to link them with truancy, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the ones that had been highlighted were housing benefit and child benefit, even though we had not been planning to make an announcement on the latter at this stage.
The Prime Minister was not afraid to underline the Government’s determination that people should take responsibility for their anti-social behaviour, particularly when £11bn of public money was being spent on housing benefit to support them. We acknowledged that there was a problem with truancy - and yes, it could be dealt with through other means. However, it was important to recognise that 80% of truants were found in the company of a parent.
Clearly that was something we had to deal with. Asked if that meant the Prime Minister was willing to use the benefits system as an instrument of social policy to change people’s behaviour, the PMOS said that in the case of truancy, the Prime Minister wanted to encourage parents to exercise their responsibility and make sure their children went to school. Where practical, he would use whatever tools were available to him to ensure that happened. In the same way, a variety of methods would be used to deal with anti-social behaviour. How all that might work in practice was a question which we were continuing to look at. Frank Field himself had admitted that his Bill needed more work. Clearly, the issue needed to be thought through, and that would be done.
Asked whether the Prime Minister had ‘dismissed’ the fact that docking child benefit as a result of the behaviour of one child would mean that other children in the family would be penalised, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister did not dismiss the issues that had to be addressed. Obviously this was something which would have to be considered. In the Prime Minister’s view, however, families receiving financial aid should be encouraged to send their children to school. Child benefit was one way to ensure that happened.
Questioned as to whether the criticism being levelled at the proposal could sink the whole scheme or whether the Prime Minister was determined to press ahead with it regardless, the PMOS said that as with any proposal, issues were raised and thought through. The Prime Minister accepted that.
Equally, he was determined that the problem of truancy should not be swept under the carpet. As we had stated repeatedly, Downing Street had not announced the proposal. It had come to the fore by other means. That was not to deny that we hadn’t been discussing the idea. Clearly we had - as part of the crime seminars the Prime Minister was chairing. In the end, however, it was important to recognise that the practical points could only be addressed if, and when, any formal proposal was put forward. We were not at that stage yet.
Asked whether a decision had been made to withdraw child benefit for all persistent truants, the PMOS said no. Asked to point to evidence showing that such a proposal would be a good thing, the PMOS repeated that a formal proposal had not yet been made. It was an option which was being considered. Put to him that we were allying means-testing with behaviour-testing, the PMOS repeated that there was no firm proposal at this stage to withdraw child benefit. At the moment it was an option which we were considering. We were unable to get into the specifics until a firm proposal was put forward.
Put to him that the idea which had been raised would seem to suggest that the Government was thinking about the possibility of withdrawing other benefits, the PMOS said that particular problems such as truancy and anti-social behaviour had to be addressed using all practical means possible on a case-by-case basis. Asked if there was a timescale to turn this idea into a formal policy, the PMOS said no. We would work through the issue and, if appropriate, put forward a firm proposal as and when.
Put to him that the proposal would appear to destroy the whole concept of the Minimum Income Guarantee, the PMOS said that while it was impossible to reply in detail because no policy had yet emerged, journalists appeared to be jumping to assumptions which might, in time, prove not to be borne out. He said he could understand why he was being pressed on the detail. However, it was important to recognise that Downing Street had not announced the idea in the first place. It had come to light through other means.
Put to him that the proper place to punish anti-social behaviour through fines was in the courts, the PMOS said that we had shown we were not afraid to use the courts system whenever it was appropriate to do so. However, we acknowledged that sentencing policy could be counterproductive in some cases. Consequently, if we could use other means to encourage people to behave responsibly, we believed we should do so. Questioned again as to whether other benefits would be at risk under the Government’s ‘new doctrine’ which had been announced today, the PMOS said he did not recognise the description. Rights and responsibilities had been a major theme in this Government for some time. We would continue to look at issues such as truancy and social behaviour on a case by case basis.
Put to him that his language suggested that Downing Street was backing away from the firm stance it had adopted at the weekend when his colleague had said that the Prime Minister did not shirk from taking difficult decisions if he thought they were right, the PMOS said he would disagree. Quite legitimately, journalists were trying to push him into revealing the detail of the proposal.
However, as we had made clear repeatedly since the weekend, we were not yet at the stage where we could do that as the proposal was still being worked on. Yes, we believed in the idea sufficiently to explore the options. But in our view that was a perfectly valid way in which to think about the important issues.
Asked again to point to any evidence showing that docking child benefit would encourage children to go to school, the PMOS underlined once more that 80% of truants were accompanied by a parent. That was an indication that many parents were aware their children were not at school. This meant parents did have a responsibility - and a capability - to do more to encourage their children to attend school, and they therefore needed to ask themselves what more they could do personally to ensure that happened. In this way, the truancy issue could be addressed, which would in part also tackle the street crime issue, given all these problems were inter-linked.
Put to him that we wanted to use the benefits system to address social issues because we did not trust the courts to be tough enough, the PMOS said he would disagree. He pointed out that the problem was multifaceted. Part of the trouble was the fact that parents did not exercise their responsibility. If we could nip problems in the bud before they reached the courts, then we should do so.
Put to him that we had been talking about persistent truants at the weekend whereas we now appeared to be referring to children who went out shopping with their parents, the PMOS said that neither the Government, nor anyone else, should condone any level of truancy. Nor should journalists jump to the conclusion that every truant would have their child benefit withdrawn. The proposal was still in its planning stage. Until we presented it formally, people should not make assumptions about it.
Questioned as to whether prescription charges might be applied to truants, the PMOS said that we never answered hypothetical questions. Put to him that it wasn’t a hypothetical question and that we were the ones who had ‘opened the can of worms’ by talking about the possibility of docking benefits, the PMOS said that there were two practical proposals aimed at tackling two problems. We would proceed on a case by case basis.
Asked to name any Cabinet Minister who supported the proposals given the Prime Minister had failed to do so when challenged at PMQs this afternoon, the PMOS pointed to the comments made by Estelle Morris earlier in the week. Questioned as to whether Ms Morris was the only one, the PMOS pointed out that he had been asked to name one Minister, which he had done. Obviously she wasn’t the only one. Journalists shouldn’t be so surprised that he had given a straight answer to a straight question.
Local Elections
Asked to explain what ‘Local Government Election Purdah’ meant in light of the Home Secretary’s announcement on crime this morning, the PMOS pointed out that the Home Office had chosen specifically not to issue regional press notices detailing the amount of money which would go to each particular area because they were conscious of the Purdah rules. As he had underlined several times this morning, the announcement had been about national issues and a national policy. Asked where the rules were set out, the PMOS said he was not an expert, but as he understood it, they were based largely on convention.
Northern Ireland
Questioned repeatedly about the Prime Minister’s plans for tomorrow, the PMOS said that we never discussed his movements in advance. That said, he could confirm that the Prime Minister would be chairing Cabinet in the morning.
delicious
digg
facebook
