Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: EU Accession states/Immigration, Chinese Gangmasters, House of Lords Reform, Domestic Agenda, Butler Inquiry, Tessa Jowell and Star-Ratings.
EU Accession States/Immigration
Asked to clear up the confusion regarding people from EU Accession States working in the UK, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said he did not think there had been any confusion about this issue. His colleague had explained the position last week. The Government remained committed to ensuring that the UK labour market was opened up to those who genuinely wanted to come here and work. However, we would not tolerate people who simply arrived here for the purpose of ‘benefit shopping’. David Blunkett and Andrew Smith had been working together to look at how we could tighten up procedures relating to so-called ‘benefit tourism’ in advance of 1 May. They were putting together a range of measures which were designed to stop potential abuse in this area. We expected the details to be set out shortly. Asked if that might be before recess, the PMOS said it wasn’t impossible. Asked if the Prime Minister would follow the example of other EU member states and introduce a derogation, the PMOS said that as we had told journalists at last Wednesday’s press briefing, our position regarding the EU labour market had not changed. The Home Secretary had set it out again today in the Guardian. We believed it was right for our labour markets to be opened up. In our view, we should take advantage of the fact that people wanted to come here to work, particularly since, as the CBI had pointed out, there were skills shortages in certain areas. That said, it was important for us to ensure that those who came to the UK were here to work rather than claim benefits.
In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that the labour market would be opened up from 1 May in terms of citizens being able to move freely across the whole of the EU. Some countries already had a derogation. We had made clear in the explanatory notes to the Accessions Act that there were safeguards if needed, but that we could exclude nationals of one or more of the eight relevant states from the right to work in the UK under powers contained in the Act. The notes also made clear that we did not believe those safeguards would be necessary. The reason why we were looking at this issue was to ensure that our benefits procedures were not abused.
Asked if he was indicating that the Government was ruling out a specific ban on people from the Accession countries coming to the UK to work, the PMOS said we had made that point clear last week. Mr Blunkett’s words in the Guardian amplified the position. Questioned about the benefits which Accession workers would be able to claim, the PMOS said that there was an issue relating to benefits under the Habitual Residence Test. The announcement from Mr Blunkett and Mr Smith was likely to focus on this area. Asked if the Habitual Residence Test would apply only to workers from Eastern European/Accession countries, the PMOS said that as he understood it, it would be virtually impossible to discriminate in favour of one group of European member states against another. Put to him that the Law Lords ruling which allowed dispersed asylum seekers to seek emergency housing anywhere in the country would act as an incentive for people to come to the UK, the PMOS said that the issue of asylum seekers was a different matter. Those coming to the UK from EU Accession countries would have a right to freedom of movement across the European Union.
Chinese Gangmasters
Asked the if the Government would support a Private Member’s Bill seeking to tidy up the law on gangmasters in the light of the tragic events at Morecambe Bay, the PMOS said that, given the crowded parliamentary timetable, he had not heard that legislative time was being made available for such a Bill. However, as with all Private Member’s Bills when they were tabled, the Government would consider the details and make judgements accordingly.
House of Lords Reform
Asked if the Prime Minister was in favour of the proposal for indirect elections to the House of Lords, the PMOS said that our position on the House of Lords had not changed. As Lord Falconer had set out yesterday, we were keen to see the re-establishment of the Joint Committee so that it could consider issues, including the indirect elections proposal, relating to Lords reform. Until that mechanism was up and running again, it was difficult to discuss the options. Asked if the proposal was a way to break the current impasse, the PMOS said that it was an idea which we would like the Committee to explore.
Domestic Agenda
Looking ahead to the business for the next few days, the PMOS advised journalists that crime, health, education and anti-social behaviour would all be highlighted by Ministers this week through announcements and events. Asked if the Prime Minister had instructed Ministers to focus on domestic issues, the PMOS said that he wouldn’t characterise it in that way. It was clear that the public wanted the focus to be on the domestic agenda. The Government was just as keen for that to happen. This week there would be a considerable amount of activity across the main delivery departments. Of course that was not to suggest that the last few weeks hadn’t seen a similar amount of activity. We accepted the fact that, as a result of the Hutton Inquiry and its aftermath, there had inevitably been more of a focus on Iraq-related issues. That was not to say that those issues were not important. They were. However, it was important for people to recognise that they did not define the totality of the Government’s agenda. They clearly did not.
Asked if this week’s ‘flurry of activity’ represented an ‘admission’ that the Government had not done very much over the past seven years to address the concerns of voters who were becoming increasingly apathetic as a result, the PMOS said that this week was about the Government continuing to focus on the bread-and-butter issues which affected people up and down the country, just as it had done over the past seven years. Voter turnout was an issue which all political parties had to address. It was clearly something of concern to democracies the world over. This week should in no way be seen as an admission on the part of the Government that it hadn’t done anything on the domestic agenda. On the contrary. It should be seen as a continuation of the existing public service reform agenda. Asked if he would accept that voters were being turned off because they were not receiving anything from the Government in return for their vote, the PMOS said no. Issues relating to voter turnout were very complex. This Government had delivered a sound economic platform, low interest rates, low inflation and record employment levels. All this was allowing us to invest in our public services. Of course, we would not claim for one second to have cured all the failings. However, we were working hard to put right some of the problems which had been inherited and to ensure that our public services were more responsive to the needs of their users.
Butler Inquiry
Asked if Lord Butler had started work on his Inquiry yet, the PMOS said that he wasn’t certain. If he hadn’t started it by now, no doubt he would do so very shortly in the light of the fact that the Inquiry was due to report by the summer recess. Asked if the Prime Minister had been asked to give evidence, the PMOS said that as we had underlined consistently since the establishment of the Inquiry last week, the Prime Minister and the Government would co-operate fully with it.
Tessa Jowell
Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with Tessa Jowell’s comments about testosterone-charged interviews in TV studios, the PMOS said that he hadn’t asked him and pointed out the qualification the Secretary of State had subsequently issued. In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that he personally was chilled out as usual.
Star-Ratings
Asked if the Government would continue with its star-ratings policy for hospitals, the PMOS said that John Reid had put out a statement today saying that, "The Government is committed to ensuring that simple to understand star-rating hospital performance information will continue to be published". The next set were due out in July. From April 2004, the star-ratings system would be handled by the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI). The same system would continue until 2005. A discussion was currently underway about the information which underpinned the performance rankings from 2006. However, the Government remained fully committed to providing information to the public in a way they found useful. We were also committed to more transparency on these issues, rather than less.
delicious
digg
facebook
