Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Peerages, Papal Visit, Employment Figures, Education Bill and Pensions
Peerages
Asked if it was possible to withdraw names from the peers list if it had not yet been published, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) replied that as he had said from the beginning, he was not going to give a running commentary on how we prepared the peers list. That had been the tradition and convention, and the longer that this had gone on, the more he saw the wisdom that lay in that convention. Therefore, the PMOS said he would continue with his stated objective of not saying anything until a list was actually published.
Asked what were the procedures and rules, and could the Prime Minister withdraw a name, the PMOS said that there were names considered by the Appointments Commission.
Put that perhaps there were no rules, and it had "never been ironed out", the PMOS suggested the journalist went back and looked at when the Appointments Commission was set up, and that would set out the rules. The PMOS said again that he was not going to get involved in a commentary on the process.
Asked if anyone in No10 had called David Garrard prior to his announcement that he was pulling out of the peerages nominations, the PMOS said he was not aware of any contact. The PMOS said he thought he had heard that the BBC were running a conspiracy theory on it; it struck the PMOS as far-fetched.
Asked about the conspiracy theory, the PMOS replied that he thought it was about timings being deliberately for today; given the reaction of people from Downing Street, it seemed pretty far-fetched, but it filled internet space!
Put that this was possibly one of "the greatest humiliations" before the Prime Minister, the PMOS said he thought the questions probably got the prize as being one of the greatest collection of possible smears in the shortest space of time as possible.
The journalist said he was glad he had provoked that reaction from the PMOS, but it was embarrassing for the Prime Minister regarding the nominations, the PMOS replied that all it did was underline that these things were best dealt with in private, which is what the PMOS had been saying all along.
Papal Visit
Asked for information about a possible papal visit, the PMOS said that it was a matter for the Catholic Church, and he was not going to give people any headline at all.
Put that as the Pope was a Head of State, should it not therefore go through the Palace, and therefore ultimately via the Prime Minister, the PMOS said that as people knew, these things were dealt with through the usual channels. The Pope was always welcome, but the PMOS had no knowledge of any particular plans that he should enlighten people with.
Asked if the Prime Minister had paid tribute to the Pope, the PMOS said that he was waiting for the next obvious question…in lobby terms! Asked if the Prime Minister had full confidence in the Pope…the PMOS laughed!
Employment Figures
Put to the PMOS that the employment figures published today had shown one of the biggest monthly rises in 15 years, and what was the reaction to them, the PMOS replied that people should look back at last month’s figures which had shown that unemployment had fallen by 2000. It was not therefore possible to say that this was part of a trend, because if people looked back over the last year, employment had risen by 178,000. Therefore, in terms of the overall economy, that was where we were. Clearly, people would be looking to see the particular reasons for last month, and what the figures would be next month.
Education Bill
Asked if the Prime Minister minded having to rely on the Conservative vote in order to get the Education Bill through, the PMOS said that as people knew, he could not get involved in Party political matters. However, the important thing today was what the actual outcome was for schools, pupils and teachers. On that basis, the important thing was that the reforms were carried through.
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that, as was often the case with previous Prime Ministers, for example that "one was enough" in terms of votes, the PMOS said that the important thing was that the reforms that the Government had set out that gave freedoms to schools to develop, or measures on school disciple were carried through. The important thing was not the process, but rather, the outcome.
Asked if there would be no more concessions, the PMOS replied that he had been asked the same question many times, and the position on clarifications had been set out in the letter to MPs by Ruth Kelly, and we had nothing to add to that.
Asked if the Prime Minister was engaged in meeting MPs before the vote, the PMOS replied that as he had said in the last weeks, the Prime Minister had done, and continued to do what was necessary to try and win the argument. It was a matter, however, for the House.
Asked if there was any urgency in getting the Education Bill on the Statute books, the PMOS replied that the important thing was that we did get it on the Statute books, and clearly, we believed that the reforms were necessary and that schools wanted them. Therefore, the sooner, the better.
Pensions
Asked if the Prime Minister was ruling out any compensation for pensioners, the PMOS said that there were a number of important points, as John Hutton had said this morning. First, we all fully understood the anger and frustration of those who had lost out. Secondly, however, it had to be right that taxpayers could not compensate private pensions funds; that was a matter for employers. Thirdly, there was a financial assistance scheme for those pensioners who were especially badly hit, and that at the moment was worth £400 million. Finally, John Hutton had said today that we were looking at that scheme as part of the new current spending review, and how it could be improved. To say that there was no assistance to pensioners was wrong, but equally, however, taxpayers could not compensate for failings of private pension schemes.
Put that given the £400 million had to be divided between 85,000 pensioners and it was equivalent to £4.50 each a week, was there any chance that it could be increased, the PMOS said it was not right just to divide it by the number of pensioners, as it depended on circumstances and hardship cases. Secondly, John Hutton had said today that he would look at the scheme in the new spending round.
Put that John Hutton had explicitly rejected the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s criticism of the Government leaflet, which raised the point of what was the point of having an Ombudsman if their criticism was ultimately rejected, the PMOS said that equally, put the other way round, yes, there were figures like the Ombudsman who were independent and who reached conclusions. It was strange, however, if it was said that automatically, a Government had to accept their views, as those views were assessed and due weight was given to them. John Hutton had set out the reasons, and people would judge for themselves.
Asked again what was the point of an Ombudsman if they were rejected out of hand, the PMOS replied that he had just answered the question. Of course due weight was given to what the Ombudsman had said, and John Hutton had said that they were giving due weight. The fact that they were looking again at the financial assistance scheme supported that.
Asked if the Prime Minister agreed that the leaflets were accurate and not misleading, the PMOS replied that John Hutton had set out the reasons why the DWP believed that was the case.
delicious
digg
facebook
