Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Office for National Statistics, Iraq/Troops, the Prime Minister and ID Cards.
Office for National Statistics (ONS)
Asked for a reaction to reports that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) had been asked to change the way it measured productivity in public services, the PMOS said that the Treasury had dealt with this issue yesterday. As they had explained, there were problems with statistics in this field because, for instance, if more nurses were taken on, that would count as a cut in productivity since it would seem that there were more nurses per patient. Equally, if additional childcare assistants were taken on, that would also count as a drop in productivity because it would seem that there were more teachers and teaching assistants per pupil. That was clearly nonsense. Obviously the wrinkles in the system had to be ironed out and that was what this story was about. Asked if the Government would refuse to accept any suggestion by the ONS, under the current method of calculation, that productivity had fallen since 1997, the PMOS repeated that in the Government’s view, more teachers and teaching assistants per pupil and more nurses per patient did not represent what would, under the current system, be classified as a fall in productivity. Rather, it should be seen as an increase in the quality of care of hospitals and an increase in the skills and experience available to pupils. It was therefore important to correct those anomalies, which was precisely what we were doing.
Iraq/Troops
Asked about the possibility of sending additional troops to Iraq, the PMOS said that this remained a matter for review. We were in discussions with our Coalition partners about this issue, as indeed we had been throughout. At this point, there was nothing further to report. Asked if an announcement might be made this week, the PMOS said that no decisions had been taken at this stage. Put to him that the Government’s policy on troop deployments appeared to be changing, the PMOS said he would disagree. He had been repeating the same thing since this time last week. Asked if the UK had been approached formally to send additional troops to Iraq to fill the hole created by the departure of Spanish troops, the PMOS said that he was not going to provide a running commentary on a review that was currently taking place. Others might give their views in private briefings. However, we believed that it was better for a decision to be made on the basis of operational advice from those on the ground.
Prime Minister
Asked to confirm reports that the Prime Minister was intending to ‘hang up his boots’ after the referendum on the EU Constitution, the PMOS said that the best way to answer this repetitive question was to refer journalists to what the Prime Minister himself had answered, for example in his News of the World interview and his David Frost interview last September. As he had said then, you pays your money, you takes your choice. That view had not changed. Asked if the Prime Minister was pleased that Neil Kinnock was speculating about his future, the PMOS said that Mr Kinnock’s words were a matter for Mr Kinnock, not for the Prime Minister or the PMOS.
ID Cards
Asked to explain the sudden rush to introduce ID cards given the fact that the Government had been indicating last autumn that the decision would only be made some years hence, the PMOS said that the position had not changed since last November. The reasons for the introduction of biometric data in passports remained the same in terms of the international dimension. Similarly, the domestic reasons for introducing ID cards had not changed in terms of the focus on fraud and security and the protection of people’s identity. Equally, the timetable remained the same, as did the fact that the decision on compulsion would be a matter for the Government and Parliament. Put to him that the Prime Minister himself had indicated last week that it was important to press on with ID cards, the PMOS said that as we had underlined last November, we needed to press on with sorting out the logistics of introducing such a scheme. However, the basic timescale and basic structure of the proposal remained the same.
Asked if 2013 remained the date for when a decision on compulsion would be made, the PMOS said yes. Put to him that that was not what the Home Secretary had been saying, the PMOS said that that was the timetable towards which we were working. Asked if Mr Blunkett was trying to embarrass Downing Street, the PMOS said no. The Home Secretary was getting on with the job of preparing the ground so that we would be in a position to make a decision at the appropriate time. Put to him that Mr Blunkett had been speaking about making a decision in three years’ time, the PMOS said that it was important for people to be clear about the timetable for ID cards. As we had said last November, we would be in a position to introduce voluntary ID cards in 2007. A decision on compulsion would be made in and around 2013. In answer to further questions about compulsion, the PMOS said that the draft Bill set out a "super-affirmative" process whereby the Government must publish a report setting out its case for the move to compulsion; the report must include a proposition on how compulsion would work; the report must be laid before Parliament for debate and vote in both Houses. Asked when the report would be published, the PMOS said that it would be at some point in and around 2013 when we estimated that 80% of people would have ID cards.
Asked to explain the Home Secretary’s comments over Easter suggesting that logistics and practicalities were now the issue rather than civil liberties, the PMOS reminded journalists that that was precisely what we had been saying last November. Asked if he was indicating that the Cabinet had now dealt with questions arising from the issue of civil liberties and ID cards, the PMOS said that the issues of logistics and practicalities were the ones that we were examining.
Asked why it was sensible to wait nine years before introducing compulsion when one of the reasons behind the introduction of ID cards in the first place was to tackle terrorism, the PMOS said that as the delay in introducing voluntary ID cards suggested, this was a complicated process. This was an age in which technology was constantly changing. We could see the direction in which technology was going in terms of biometrics information for example, but we had to make sure that the process worked. It was inevitable that that would take time. Put to him that nine years was an awfully long time, the PMOS said that that period of time was necessary to allow the appropriate processes to be gone through and for counter-checks to be made.
Asked to set out the timetable for the introduction of ID cards, the PMOS said that, on current plans, ID cards would start in 2007/8. We estimated that by 2013 around 80% of people would have one. That was when the Government and Parliament would take a decision on compulsion. Asked if the full Bill would be introduced in the next Parliamentary session, the PMOS said that the Bill would go through the normal parliamentary processes. Asked if the Bill would guarantee a vote on the issue in Parliament, the PMOS said that as we had stated last November, and as the Prime Minister had underlined repeatedly since, Parliament would decide whether compulsion should go ahead or not. Asked if it was correct to say that Cabinet had not approved the compulsory ID card scheme, the PMOS said that Cabinet had approved the process which was going forward at the moment. That process included the fact that it would be Parliament which would decide if the scheme should be made compulsory or not. The Government would need to set out a report recommending compulsion. We were not at that stage yet. Asked the last time Cabinet had discussed the issue of ID cards, the PMOS said that there had been a full discussion in Cabinet before the announcement last November. Asked if he would agree that most of the Cabinet was not keen on the introduction of ID cards, the PMOS said no. The Government had made its decision last November to go down this route and that was precisely what it was doing.
Asked if people applying for a new passport or driving licence from 2007 would be obliged to go down the biometric route, the PMOS said that that would be in line with the international dimension of the issue. For example, other countries, such as the US, were already demanding biometric data on passports.
Asked if ID cards were regarded primarily as an anti-terrorism measure, the PMOS said no. There was a whole range of benefits to having ID cards, including the ability to tackle illegal working, enable people to access services, and ensure that foreign visitors and residents were properly identified. Asked if the threat of terrorism was being used as an excuse to introduce ID cards, which was something the Government had long wanted to do, the PMOS said that he would disagree with the suggestion. The protection of people’s identity was also a human right. In today’s world, fraud was an increasing problem, an issue which banking services and the financial industry would agree needed to be tackled. But he also pointed out that countering terrorism was an issue which should not be under-estimated.
Asked if was true that, under the terms of the draft Bill, people would be required to show their ID cards before being able to use Britain’s public services, the PMOS said that as things stood at the current time, this would be a voluntary system from the time that ID cards were first introduced.
delicious
digg
facebook
