Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Spokesman on: Fire Dispute/War on Terror/Iraq/Military Overstretch.
Fire Dispute/War on Terror/Iraq/Military Overstretch
Asked about this morning’s briefing, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that we were completely relaxed about it. It was part of our more open strategy with the media and an attempt to have a more grown up conversation with them - and, through them, the public. Asked what impact a long-running fire dispute might have on preparations for any military operations in Iraq in light of the Chief of Defence Staff’s comments, the PMOS said that the words of the CDS this morning were a statement of the obvious. They reflected reality. If there were 19,000 troops on fire-fighting duty, then obviously that meant that they were not carrying out their regular military duties. As a result, the fire strike was putting an additional burden on the military. However, as the Prime Minister had made clear in the House this afternoon - and repeating what the CDS had said this morning - we would maintain a capability to respond to any future requirements falling on the armed forces.
In answer to further questions, the PMOS supplied journalists with figures relating to current troop deployments. The British armed forces numbered 190,000 in total. At the moment, 3.3% (just over 6,000) were on overseas deployments (including Afghanistan, Macedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and the no-fly zones in Iraq). 10.2% were committed to Operation Fresco, on standby to take over the job of the fire-fighters in the event of industrial action, as had already happened. The remainder were either in the UK or stationed at permanent base areas overseas - for example, 13,500 were in Northern Ireland, 25,000 were in Germany, 3,190 in Cyprus, 1,257 in the Falklands and 774 in Gibraltar. As the CDS had underlined this morning, there was clearly still capacity. These figures also underlined the fact that we were putting in place a significant amount of planning for the fire dispute, which was our duty in terms of public safety. It had clearly paid dividends in the first 48-hour strike last week where the military had acquitted themselves extremely well. That said, it would not be helpful to start speculating about any future commitments, including possible military action in Iraq, because we were not at that point yet. As the Prime Minister had made clear in the House, if Iraq breached the UN Resolution and if, following a discussion in the UN Security Council, we believed that the circumstances justified it, then we would participate in any military action against Saddam Hussein. However, it was important to recognise that our goal was disarmament, not war or regime change. Our aim was to disarm Saddam peacefully via the UN route through intrusive weapons inspections. The question as to whether there would actually be a peaceful resolution - and we all hoped that there would be - was entirely dependent on Saddam Hussein.
Questioned about reports of a US request for military assistance from the UK, the PMOS said that there had been a Reuters report overnight which had indicated that the Canadians had received a similar request. He confirmed that the US Ambassador had had a meeting with Geoff Hoon on Monday to present this communication from the US Administration. It had described a number of different scenarios, but a final decision on how many troops and where had not been taken at this stage because we were not at that point. Questioned further about the US’s request in the light of the comments made by Geoff Hoon this morning and the Prime Minister’s words in the House this afternoon, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister and Geoff Hoon had essentially been saying the same thing today. We had always said that military planning would run alongside the efforts of the Security Council to seek a peaceful way to disarm Saddam Hussein through weapons inspections. That had yielded dividends inasmuch as Resolution 1441 had been agreed unanimously and Hans Blix had already returned to Iraq. We had only been able to get this far through the credible threat of force, although we obviously recognised that acceptance was one thing but compliance was another. It was therefore not unreasonable for parallel planning to take place. This was an extension and continuation of that.
Asked if the Prime Minister would accept that having 19,000 troops on standby reduced the capability of the UK’s armed forces, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had answered this point during PMQs this afternoon. It was self evident that training up soldiers to use Green Goddesses and other fire fighting equipment because of the threat of strike action by the FBU would take them away from their regular military duties. However, as the CDS had underlined this morning, we still remained able to maintain a military capability. Put to him that it meant that our capability was not as effective as it should be, the PMOS said that we had to make judgements based on the different scenarios which we were facing. That was what we would continue to do, but he repeated that the military had handled the 48-hour strike well within their planned capacity.
Asked if we were concerned by the CDS’s comment that troops were demoralised and demotivated because they were being forced to get involved in the fire dispute, the PMOS said that no one would dispute the fact that we had one of the most professional armed forces in the world. It was a tribute to their flexibility and professionalism that they were able to move quickly, at relatively short notice, from their core functions into fire-fighting duties. We had seen them responding extraordinarily effectively to our request for assistance. Should any of them rather be carrying out their core military functions - and it was not unreasonable that some might - then no doubt they would be aware of the good will and thanks of the British public who were very grateful that they had been carrying out the tasks required of them.
In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that it was a statement of the obvious that no one within Government or anywhere else wanted to be confronted with a fire strike which threatened public safety. However, that was the reality of the situation. The fact that we had already had a strike and were facing another one showed that we had been right to put in place the contingency arrangements we had been planning for some time. We had to make difficult judgements. Just because a union had made a pay demand in a service where there was a link to public safety did not mean that it should be acceded to regardless of the economic consequences.
Asked to explain the thinking behind the decision not to allow troops to cross picket lines, the PMOS said that Geoff Hoon had made the position clear this morning. The military would have made available to them whatever they thought they needed. They had made it absolutely clear that they were best served staying with, as the core of the operation, the Green Goddesses on which they had been trained. He reminded journalists that there was no ’shadow’ fleet of red fire engines on which they could have been trained. If it had been decided that they should indeed have been trained on the tenders, then many would have had to have been taken out of service at a time when there was no strike. The military had therefore decided to continue to use their fleet of Green Goddesses, specialist breathing apparatus and cutting equipment which, as the Prime Minister had said, were deployed in separate vehicles. They would also be augmented by a small number of red fire engines, as we had made clear at the end of last week. Should they need anything else, then obviously there was no political or ideological bar to them having it. Questioned as to whether troops would be escorted across picket lines by the police, the PMOS said that, were we to get to that position, it would be a civilian function to cross the picket line. He added that while the questions being put to him were perfectly legitimate, they would all become irrelevant if the strikes were called off. Asked whether Lord Falconer had been wrong to suggest that the military would be asked to cross picket lines, the PMOS said that he had been making the perfectly reasonable point that there was no political bar to us taking any action necessary to protect public safety. Pressed further as to whether he had been wrong, the PMOS said that journalists could read Lord Falconer’s words for themselves. He was a first rate Minister as journalists knew well.
Asked if the Prime Minister had spoken to the Deputy Prime Minister today following his talks last night with Andy Gilchrist, the PMOS confirmed that they had spoken briefly. Questioned as to whether there were any plans for the two to speak again this evening, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. He pointed out that the talks which really mattered - those that would resolve the dispute - were the ones between the employers and the FBU.
Questioned about the prospect of additional money being found by raiding one Department’s budget and giving the money to another, the PMOS said it was not going to happen. Were people really suggesting that, in order to fund a hyper-inflationary pay claim by the FBU which was not linked to modernisation, we should take money away from schools, hospitals and the transport system? He underlined the point that public spending limits were fixed. The envelope was sealed and would not be opened. There was no such thing as free money. There were always choices which had to be made. We had made our choices at the time of the Budget in terms of each Department’s spending. He could only imagine what teachers, nurses, the armed forces and other public servants might say if they felt that the budget from their Department was being scaled back in order to give more money to the fire-fighters.
delicious
digg
facebook
