Press briefing from the Prime Ministers Official Spokesman on: Investment Climate Facility, PM visit, Pensions, Education, Cabinet and ID cards
Investment Climate Facility
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister would be meeting business leaders today to discuss African business and trade issues and to encourage support for the new Investment Climate Facility. He would announce that we would be contributing $30 million to the Facility over the next three years. Shell and Anglo American had each announced $2.5 million over five years. We were seeking support from other governments and multinational companies.
PM visit
The PMOS informed journalists that the Prime Minister would be visiting Yorkshire this afternoon. He would visit a Sure Start Centre and would also meet around 50 young Muslims. Paul Goggins and Hilary Benn would also attend the event.
Pensions
Asked for a reaction to the various media stories today regarding the conclusions of the Turner Commission on Pensions, the PMOS pointed out that the Commission had not yet published its report and we were therefore not going to rule out any options at this stage. Asked if the Prime Minister would accept that it would be more difficult to persuade people to work until the age of 67 in return for a more generous state pension, the PMOS repeated that it was important to wait for the report to be published at the end of the month. In the meantime, nobody was ruling anything in or out. People should exercise a little patience.
Asked if the Prime Minister was unhappy with the public sector pensions deal, the PMOS said that he had dealt with the issue at length at yesterday’s briefing. He had nothing further to say about it. Asked if the deal was "signed, sealed and delivered" and whether the Turner Commission’s conclusions might have an impact on it, the PMOS said that as he had told journalists yesterday, he was not aware of any plans to address the agreement again. That remained the position.
Education
Asked for a reaction to suggestions that the Prime Minister viewed the successful passage of the Education Bill as a "de facto show of confidence" in his leadership ability, the PMOS said that he had no intention of getting drawn into a hypothetical discussion. It was important to focus on the substance of the issue, not speculate about the process. The Prime Minister viewed the Education White Paper as a way of building on the education reforms we were already establishing. At its core was a determination to raise standards in all our schools, particularly those in deprived areas. That was what the Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, would continue to set out to colleagues and the public, as indeed she was doing today in her speech to new Head teachers at the QEII Conference Centre. We were seeking ways to personalise education in order to help people catch up. We were also introducing tough new measures to tackle the problem of discipline in the classroom.
Questioned as to whether an independent arbiter would be appointed to deal with the issue of selection, the PMOS pointed out that the post of Adjudicator already existed. The White Paper would extend the Adjudicator’s remit in cases where a ruling had been made disallowing any change to admissions procedures. This would mean that a policy would have to apply for three years, instead of one year as at present. It would also be the case that any new school would not be able to change its admissions policy for three years.
Asked if the independent Adjudicator had the legal authority to abandon selection by ability, the PMOS said that there was a legal requirement for schools to take account of the Adjudicator’s rulings. What had changed was the fact that his verdict would have to apply for three years, not one. It was imperative for schools to take the Code of Practice into account. If that did not happen, other schools, parents or local authorities could refer the school to the Adjudicator. Pressed as to whether the Adjudicator would legally be able to force schools to abandon selection by ability, the PMOS said that the experts in the field, having heard what the BBC had been saying about this issue this morning, believed that some journalists had missed the point. The important thing was that the Code of Practice was legally binding.
Asked for the Government’s definition of ’selection’ in terms of whether it referred to selection by ability, aptitude, interview or even postcode, the PMOS said that the Government was absolutely clear that there would be no return to the 11-plus. Equally, in referring to aptitude, it was important to recognise that specialist schools had been able to take that into account, so that up to 10% of their intake could be selected on those grounds. That said, the actual figure had remained fairly stable at 6%, despite the fact that the number of specialist schools had increased from around 200 to over 2,500 and that two third of pupils in secondary education were now in secondary schools. The Government’s commitment to a fair admissions policy was therefore very clear.
Cabinet
Asked why Cabinet had met in Admiralty House this morning, rather than Downing Street, the PMOS said he could see that the change of location was clearly a source of excitement for the Westminster Village. However, there was a very simply reason for the change. Admiralty House had been refurbished recently, and having a Cabinet meeting there this morning had provided an opportunity for Ministers to have a look at what had been done. Asked how much the refurbishment had cost, the PMOS referred journalists to the Cabinet Office Press Office for a reply.
ID cards
Asked for a reaction to Stella Rimmington’s comments about ID cards, the PMOS said that Ms Rimmington had been a private individual for quite some time and, as such, was perfectly entitled to her view. He drew journalists’ attention to a document on ID cards published by the Home Office in June 2005 entitled "Benefits Overview" which stated, "The security services have identified a number of benefits, which will enhance the protection of the UK against threats to national security. In outline these are: enhanced support to organised crime and terrorist investigations; tracking of serious crime and strengthening border security; improved enforcement of money laundering regulations".
The PMOS also pointed out that, following the Madrid bombings, Spanish police had stated explicitly that they had identified nearly all of the terrorists involved and that this had been made significantly easier by their identity cards scheme. There was therefore a clear international comparison which showed that ID cards had helped.
Put to him that the Government had been shifting away from the security argument and had been focussing more on the point that ID cards would help to protect against identity and benefits fraud, the PMOS pointed out that it was the media who had stated that the Government was trying to downplay the counter-terrorism argument. The reality of the situation, however, was that we were continuing to place great weight on the counter-terrorism argument, in addition to pointing to other advantages of an ID card system.
Put to him that Tony McNulty had said, "in terms", that too much reliance had been placed on the security argument, the PMOS said that we had always been clear that ID cards were not, of themselves, the one thing which would prevent a terrorist attack. However, we believed that they could be a great help in countering terrorism, as the investigations following the Madrid bombings had shown. Put to him that the Home Secretary had said after the London bombings that ID cards would not have prevented the attack, the PMOS repeated that we had never pretended that ID cards would, of themselves, prevent terrorism. However, we believed that they would be a significant help to the police in countering the terrorism threat.
Asked how much ID cards would cost, the PMOS said that the figure of £300, which had been widely reported, had come from the LSE report. We had no evidence to suggest that it would cost that much. £30 was the ’standalone figure’ for the ID element of the card. £93 was the unit cost for an ID card including passport. Put to him that that the House of Lords had been told yesterday that the Government would not provide a costing because it was commercially sensitive, the PMOS said that that position remained unchanged. The figures he had quoted were based on an average unit cost.
delicious
digg
facebook
