Press briefing from the Prime Ministers Official Spokesman on: Jack Straw speech, Child Support Agency, Mrs. Blair’s speeches/declarations, Pensions/Retirement Age and Alcohol Related Crime
Jack Straw speech
Put to the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) that Jack Straw had said in his speech that in order to get an increase in the EU budget, there would be big changes that would affect Britain as well, could that therefore be taken as a reference to the UK’s rebate, the PMOS said that he was not going to give a running commentary on the budget negotiations, as he had said before. He referred journalists back to the answer he gave several weeks ago when the same question was asked. The PMOS also said that it was simply a point of fact that we did not accept the Luxembourg proposals and we did not accept them for good reasons which we spelt out at the time. Therefore, the implications of that were fairly obvious.
Child Support Agency
Asked what the Prime Minister had meant when he said at PMQs today that the Child Support Agency (CSA) was not properly suited to its task, the PMOS replied that as people knew, there was a new Chief Executive of the CSA who had launched a review into the operation structure and performance of the CSA. Therefore, all the Prime Minister was doing was spelling out some of the issues that the review had to address. The review would report either at the end of this year, or next.
Put that the Prime Minister seemed to go further than that, and had come to a conclusion, the PMOS said that what the Prime Minister was spelling out were questions about the functions of the CSA, and whether it was possible for one organisation to fulfil all those tasks. Those were questions that the review would deal with.
Asked if the CSA was not able to carry out its functions, what would be its replacement, or what would be taken away from the CSA, the PMOS said that the review should be able to do its work first, and then we would consider its implications. It was important that given the history of the CSA, that a fundamental review was carried out, and that was under way. People should wait to see what the conclusions were, and then draw lessons from it.
Put to the PMOS that the Prime Minister had "clearly already arrived at a judgment that the CSA was finished" so why could we not say what was happening, the PMOS replied that if someone was asked to do a fundamental review of an organisation, it was a good idea to wait for their review to be finished.
Put that the Prime Minister should not have said what he said at PMQs, as there were "millions and millions of people whose lives were screwed up every day by the CSA… and they needed to know if the Prime Minister was serious", the PMOS said that we knew there were real problems with the CSA. The Prime Minister was acknowledging in the Commons today that there were real problems that had been around for a sustained period of time. We also knew that there had been improvements in performance in the CSA, and that should be noted. Equally, what the Prime Minister was not pretending was that there were not fundamental questions that had to be addressed. The PMOS said that the agency did collect more than £600 million for children last year, and this year, we had seen signs of improvement in enforcement action, and the amount of money collected from baliffs alone had doubled from £1.5 million to £2.9 million. However, what the Prime Minister was acknowledging was that there were serious questions that had to be addressed.
Put to the PMOS that the Prime Minister had said in 1998 that there were serious issues with the CSA that had to be resolved, and could it be clarified that there might therefore be a break-up of functions, the PMOS said that whenever there was a fundamental review, it was wrong to jump to conclusions ahead of that review. Therefore, what the Prime Minister was quite properly indicating was the fundamental question that the review had to address. At the same time, it was right and proper that we gave due time for that review to reach proper conclusions.
Asked again if there would be a break up of functions, as that was what the Prime Minister was suggesting, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister was saying that there was a genuine question over whether one agency could fulfil all these functions in the light of experience. Equally, we had to put in the balance that the agency had done a lot to try and prove its worth. The Chief Executive of the CSA was carrying out a review, and people should wait for him to finish the review.
Put that that as part of the review, it would be fair to assume that the break up of functions had to be one of the issues that the Chief Executive would look at, the PMOS replied that as he had said at the start, any fundamental review had to look at the structure, performance and effectiveness.
Asked did the Prime Minister go too far this morning, the PMOS asked whether the journalist seriously expect him to answer "yes" to that question?! No, the Prime Minister did not go too far, because as he had said, whenever the Government took office, the CSA was costing more money to run than it was raising. That no longer was the case. There had been improvements in performance during the past year, but serious questions did remain. What the Prime Minister was indicating at PMQs was the fundamental nature of those questions, and the review was the right place to answer those questions. What the Prime Minister was also trying to indicate was that nobody was trying to brush the problems associated with the CSA under the carpet, or pretend that there was an easy, quick-fix solution, because there was not one.
Asked if the Prime Minister had spoken to the Chief Executive today, the PMOS said not that he was aware of.
Asked if it would be accurate to say that the status quo no longer stood, the PMOS replied it would be accurate to say that the Prime Minister recognised that there were very fundamental and serious problems that needed to be addressed.
Asked if it was good enough to say that no-one should brush the problems under the carpet when a year ago, Alan Johnson told the Select Committee that the department was considering the "nuclear" options and yet, a decision still had not been made a year on, the PMOS said that to pretend there was an easy answer would be to brush things under the carpet. There was not, given the nature of what the CSA was trying to do. We should not kid ourselves that there was an easy answer, as there was not. That was why there was a fundamental review, and also why the Prime Minister quite openly had said that the review had to consider fundamental questions.
Asked if there were any parameters beyond which the review could not go, or beyond consideration, the PMOS replied that there were two steps. There was the review, and then Ministers’ considerations of the review, which they would consider with an open mind.
Mrs. Blair’s speeches/declarations
Asked why the Prime Minister had declared Mrs Blair’s speeches that she had made in Washington, Australia and New Zealand, the PMOS said that in terms of precedent, the Prime Minister did not have to declare them. If people looked at the previous Administration, Mr. Major did not register royalties received by his wife when she wrote a book on Chequers, for example. The Prime Minister decided to register these benefits in July so that everyone knew that they were "on the books" and to err on the side of caution. The Prime Minister felt it was best to be open and transparent.
Put to the PMOS that the Prime Minister had also paid for the accommodation for his holiday in Barbados, but when did he make the payment, and how much did he pay, the PMOS replied that what was on the register remained there, and he was not going to give a running commentary on it.
Pensions/Retirement Age
Asked if the Prime Minister regretted not acting in some way in relation to the retirement age of 60 for civil servants, and was the Prime Minister planning to leave it as it stood, or would there be some reforms, the PMOS said he was not aware of any plans to revisit the issue. As he had said earlier today, the savings which the agreement would deliver amounted to £13 billion between now and 2050. Therefore, that was why the Government believed that this was a good deal. That remained the position as we stated at the time, and it remained our position.
Asked why the Prime Minister regretted it then, and that others had said that it would cost £2 billion per year for the five extra years, the PMOS said it would be for others to justify their own figures. We believed the savings as calculated by the department were correct, and it would be a substantial amount of money. As the PMOS said at the time, Alan Johnson had negotiated the agreement within the envelope agreed by Cabinet.
Asked why the Prime Minister regretted it, the PMOS said he had already stated the case.
Asked again why the Prime Minister regretted it, the PMOS replied the journalist may ask the question as many times as he liked, but he had already answered.
Asked if the Prime Minister was now looking favourably at raising the retirement age from 65 to 67, the PMOS said it was better to wait for the Turner Report to come out, and then see what the Government response was to it.
Asked if the Prime Minister had received a copy or seen an advance draft of the Turner Report, the PMOS said that we would comment on the Turner Report whenever we commented on it, and it would be finalised when it was finalised. The PMOS said he was not going to give a running commentary.
Put to the PMOS that "surely" the Prime Minister would see a copy before it was published, the PMOS said the journalist was asking him to engage in a process, but rather, people should deal with the reality of the outcome.
Alcohol Related Crime
Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with Tessa Jowell said about a rise in crime once the Licensing Act started, the PMOS said as misquoted remarks went, it was a classic. What the Secretary of State actually said was that because the police were concentrating on a particular area, it was likely that more convictions would occur.
Asked if the Prime Minister agreed, the PMOS said it was better to see what the facts were. Interrupted, the PMOS said that the journalist was not Jeremy Paxman yet, and he left it to others to decide if he ever would be!! That did not mean that the figures would rise because of the Licensing Act, but rather the increased police focus on the area.
delicious
digg
facebook
