Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Recep Erdogan, Prestige and Fire Dispute.
Recep Erdogan
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister had had a 45-minute meeting this morning with Recep Erdogan, the leader of the main political party in Turkey. Issues covered included European defence, Cyprus and the Copenhagen Summit. On defence, the Prime Minister had recalled the UK position and Mr Erdogan had said that he was keen to see an agreement. On Cyprus, the Prime Minister had said that he hoped progress would be made as soon as possible. Mr Erdogan had replied that he was ready to work on the basis of the UN proposals. On the Copenhagen Summit in December, the Prime Minister had said that he hoped progress would be made regarding Turkey and the EU.
Prestige
The PMOS said that the Prime Minister had spoken this morning to the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, about the sinking of the Prestige. They had agreed to continue to press the International Maritime Organisation for the most rigorous enforcement of the agreement to phase out single-hulled vessels. We would be raising the issue at the Copenhagen Summit next month to ensure that there was real concentration on the enforcement of the phasing out date. No doubt this issue would also be raised at the Transport Council meeting in Brussels next month. Obviously we were concerned about the environmental impact of the incident. We sympathised fully with the problems facing Spain in dealing with the aftermath. We had offered our help as soon as it had become apparent that the vessel was vulnerable.
Asked if the Government wanted to see the phasing out of dangerous ‘rust-buckets’ earlier than the proposed dates, the PMOS said that in the Government’s view, the timetable which had been set out was the most realistic timetable to work towards without causing disruption to the wider maritime industry. That said, we were determined that there should be no slippage. As the sinking of the Prestige had demonstrated, there was a real issue regarding single-hulled vessels which had to be addressed.
Asked for a reaction to the Spanish Government’s allegation that the Prestige had not been inspected adequately when calling at Gibraltar, the PMOS pointed out that the vessel had made only one call in five years in Gibraltar waters, and that had been to fuel the ship. Asked if the Spanish Government had confused the port of Gibraltar with the straits of Gibraltar, the PMOS said he was not a spokesman for the Spanish Government. At this particular point in time, it was important for people to focus on the fact that the sinking of the Prestige had created a huge environmental problem. The Spanish Government were having to deal with what was clearly an extremely difficult situation, which was why we had offered them our assistance.
Fire Dispute
The PMOS advised journalists that the Deputy Prime Minister had had a meeting with the leader of the FBU, Andy Gilchrist, last night which had focussed on the issue of safety. There was some progress being made in this area. The FBU had said that they needed to discuss some legal issues and had promised to come back to us on this matter. We had consistently underlined that the best way to protect public safety and to avoid having to address contingency plans and these safety issues was to call off any further strike action. Meetings were taking place today between the employers and the unions which we hoped would be constructive.
Asked for a reaction to views expressed by both the employers and the FBU who had stated that there was no way that savings arising from the modernisation of the fire service would cover the cost of the pay increases being discussed and that the Government would have to provide additional money if it wanted to see the strike action called off, the PMOS said that as he had underlined on Monday, the public spending envelope was sealed. The public spending ceilings had been set out last July and were fixed. They were generous inasmuch as they provided significant extra resources for public services which had been under-invested in for many years. We remained firmly of the view that this additional money had to be tied to reform and could not be swallowed up by pay increases. We had made clear throughout the dispute that any extra funding over and above the 4% figure which had been tabled would have to be found from modernisation. In saying that, we meant freeing up resources through efficiency savings. The proposals from Professor Bain’s interim report gave a sound basis for this. He and his independent team had said that they believed the 11% figure was self-financing. His final conclusions were due to be published in three weeks’ time. In the meantime, it was important for the discussions to continue without the threat of strike action. Ultimately, however, that was not our call.
Put to him that it was indeed the Government’s call and that it would be blamed by the public for further industrial action if it continued to refuse to provide the extra money being requested, the PMOS said that, in an ideal world, of course everyone would receive as much money as they wanted. However, we were living in the real world. This meant working on the basis of economic prudence and making sound economic judgements if we were not to put at risk our low inflation levels, low interest rates and falling unemployment. It was easy for people to say ‘give us some more money’. However, the consequences of doing without ensuring that it was tied to reform, modernisation and efficiency would simply mean putting at risk all the economic factors he had described. The last thing he thought the public wanted to see was interest rates soaring and people starting to lose their jobs as a result of pay claims of this magnitude.
Asked to clarify the difference between his assertion that any extra money must be ‘tied’ to modernisation and the Deputy Prime Minister’s declaration in the Commons yesterday that it must be ‘linked’ to it, the PMOS said he did not think there was a huge amount of difference in the semantics. He thought that ‘linked’ and ‘tied’ meant the same thing. As he had pointed out, the overall public spending envelope for local government had been set out. The Government could not simply be expected to provide additional funds over and above public spending ceilings which, as he had already pointed, were generous firstly, because the way we ran the economy meant that we could make prudent investment in our public services, and secondly because they had been under-invested in for many years. It was up to the employers and the FBU to discuss modernisation matters. However, it was important to recognise that the issue of reform could not be de-coupled from the issue of pay. The interim Bain report had talked about an 11% offer over two years which was generous inasmuch as year 1 would be twice the rate of inflation and year 2 would be at least three times the projected rate. In order to justify those figures, however, it was clear that we had to see change in the fire service - and why not, given practices had not changed since 1977. Professor Bain had underlined the fact that this package was self-financing. His full report was due to be published in three weeks’ time. Obviously, there was scope in the context of his report for there to be real discussion about the linkage between pay and modernisation. As we had emphasised from the outset, it was self evident that the best way for those discussions to take place was not to hold the threat of strike action over the public since that would simply put public safety at risk, despite the very best efforts of the military.
Asked whether there had been any discussion regarding the possibility of shifting funds from one Departmental budget to another - such as the ODPM - in order to help fund any pay increases, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. The public spending ceilings relating to the amount of money for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and money for local authorities, as well as for other Departments, had already been set out. Giving money meant taking it away from somewhere else.
delicious
digg
facebook
