Press briefing from the Prime Ministers Official Spokesman on: Pensions, Europe Rebate, CBI Speech and Reshuffle
Pensions
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) explained for clarification following this morning’s briefing that he had re-interrogated the figures. The 10% figure for the estimated turnover of staff who would be on the new scheme, not the old scheme, remained correct. That meant, as the Prime Minister said in his speech this morning that it would be a bit more than a decade for a majority to be on the new scheme. Not 70% as the PMOS had said yesterday. The 70% figure had arisen from a misunderstanding that came about somewhere between Malta, Barcelona and London. The PMOS apologised for any confusion that had arisen.
Asked if it was across all three sectors, the PMOS said that it was in the public sector. Asked whether the 40% figure for private sector schemes was still right, the PMOS said that it remained accurate and we stood by it. It was a figure for the percentage of active members, in other words members who were working and not members of schemes that had closed down. It was a definition of the private sector that came from an independent source: the Government Actuaries Department Survey 2004.
Asked if that definition included the Post Office, the PMOS said that the examples that he had were the Bank of England and Royal Mail. However if you took the overall definition it was a small minority in what was defined as the private sector.
Put to him that the Treasury in a written answer had the figure that in 8 years time it would be 33% and in 13 years it would be 50%, the PMOS clarified that what he had said now was in just over a decade. His understanding was that the turnover rate rose at 10% a year, though he was not a statistical expert and as such they should speak with the relevant departments.
Put to him they understood that it had been a tough few days, but what confidence could they have in the rest of the Government if they gave him the wrong figures, the PMOS said that they had to recognise that sometimes when you operated out of the office or outside of London it could be difficult. The simple fact was that the figure came through from London and unfortunately it was wrong. He had corrected it at the first opportunity. He apologised again for the mistake but sometimes these things happened. What it did not do was to take away from the basic argument, which was based on the 10% figure of staff turnover and that mirrored the practice in the private sector.
Put to him that he had first used the 70% figure earlier in the week, the PMOS said that he would have to check on that but he thought the first time had been on the weekend. If he had used it earlier it was a genuine mistake then too. Having checked the figures this afternoon he had now returned and corrected the mistake.
Asked if the confusion over the figures had arisen because we were not talking to the Treasury as they clearly had the figures, the PMOS said that we were in constant contact with the Treasury. This was just one of those confused things that happened when you had non-statisticians like him dealing with figures.
Put to him that the Chancellor had indicated that the public sector pensions deal would be looked at again and was the Prime Minister minded to look at it again if it was indeed back on the table after the Turner report was published, the PMOS said that Alan Johnson had set out the position of the Government this morning, as had the Prime Minister at the weekend. Indeed so had John Hutton. The position was that the deal remained.
Put to him that even though the deal remained would there not be a need at some point in the future for adjustments and as such the deal would need to change accordingly, the PMOS said he thought that constituted the ultimate hypothetical question but despite that it would get the same response as the more ordinary variety: we did not deal in hypotheticals. We should deal with where we were now. This deal was done 6 weeks ago and the Government did not rip up deals done 6 weeks ago. The reasons why it was a good deal then remained today just as much.
Asked if Nicholas Macpherson, Permanent Secretary at HM Treasury had complained about No10 publishing his letter, the PMOS said that he was aware of our intention to publish it.
Europe Rebate
Asked if the Prime Minister’s position was as Sir Digby Jones had put it to him that Britain would give up the rebate if and only if there was a commensurate and equal giving up of the agricultural subsidy that France got and whether this was a significant hardening of his previous position, the PMOS said we should go back to first principles on this: the abatement was there because of the distortion of the budget as a result of CAP.
The Prime Minister outlined that analysis at the June Summit. He also outlined it again in his speech to the European Parliament. Therefore he was surprised that they were surprised. Put to him that the surprise was the yes to the phrase "commensurate and equal" as that sounded like a pound for pound deal, the PMOS said that he did not agree with the interpretation that this represented some change or hardening of position. This was fully in line with the analysis that the Prime Minster had set out for the reasons for the abatement.
Asked if the Prime Minister was trying to make a distinction between the rebate on CAP and a rebate on structural and cohesion funds and was this part of a strategy to help the East Europeans, the PMOS said he would not get into the detail of our discussions with the East Europeans. As he had said yesterday we were fully aware of the East Europeans desire and need to get a budget agreed, so they could begin to get their money.
Put to him that the Prime Minister had spoken to the Hungarian Prime Minister on the phone in which the Hungarian Prime Minister said his letter was now ready and that they were disappointed with the proposal, the PMOS said that we were in contact with lots of heads of government at the moment but given that we had not yet been to Budapest he thought it best to wait till we were there before dealing with that. Asked if there was any reaction to the Hungarian Prime Minister’s comment saying that what the Prime Minister was now proposing was so far from Hungary’s interests that the best answer was simply: no, the PMOS said the best time for a discussion with the Hungarian Prime Minister would be in Budapest and not via the media.
Asked why the Prime Minister had not met with the European leaders that were at the CBI conference this morning, the PMOS said that we had looked at the possibility of meeting people around today’s event, even before the slight delay that occurred. It was not possible more because of their diaries rather than the Prime Minister’s. It was important that we gave this the proper time and space and we would do that by going to see them.
Put to the PMOS that the French President believed that the Prime Minister’s frayed relations with the Chancellor made it impossible for him to secure a deal during the UK Presidency, the PMOS said that he thought that was the journalist’s interpretation of President Chirac’s comments. We should concentrate on the reality, which was that we were in the middle of a negotiation and we should keep our focus on that not comments from the sidelines.
CBI Speech
Put to him that given how security conscious we all were these days how concerned was the Prime Minister about this morning, the PMOS said that security was a matter we took very seriously, but this was a matter for the police and those whose job it was to look after security. The Prime Minister’s main concern as you had seen was, thanks to those at the CBI, to be able to deliver his speech. He had received a standing ovation at the end of it so what was there to complain about!
Asked if the Prime Minister had any views on the manner of the Greenpeace protest, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had said at the top of his speech that free speech was a two way street. He was the elected Prime Minister of the country and therefore he had a right to be heard just as Greenpeace, quite rightly, had a right to make their views known. If it was an attempt to stop the Prime Minister being heard then that was unfortunate. The Prime Minister had been quite prepared to go ahead with his speech even if that meant being heckled. The CBI came to their decision and the Prime Minister was more than happy to abide by that. The dignified manner in which the CBI handled it was commendable.
Asked if the Prime Minister in anyway accepted the argument that when public debates were launched putting on stunts was often the only way for groups to be heard, the PMOS said that in this country we had fought for the right of free expression but we also had things called elections. The Prime Minister was the elected head of the Government in this country. As such he had a right to express his views and a duty within Government to take hard decisions. We should wait to see what the energy review actually produced and debate that rather than be distracted by stunts.
Reshuffle
Asked when the rest of the reshuffle would happen, the PMOS said that we had not forgotten even if they thought we had. The PMOS said it was take as long as it took.
delicious
digg
facebook
