Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Spokesman on: PM Miller of Poland, Education Speech/Strike Action and Fire Dispute.
PM Miller of Poland
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister had met Prime Minister Miller of Poland this morning. They had had a wide-ranging discussion in which they had looked ahead to the important decisions on enlargement, which were due to be taken at Copenhagen next month. It was also being announced today that we were extending the au-pair scheme to Poland and five other EU candidate countries. This would enable more young people to spend up to two years in the UK.
Education Speech/Strike Action
The PMOS advised journalists that the Prime Minister would be making a speech on further education to the Technology Colleges Trust in Birmingham this afternoon. It would be a very strong speech on education reform and would take on the ‘equality versus elitism’ argument. He would say, "Reform is not the enemy of social justice and educational advance, but the route to it". He would say that specialist schools had not shut deprived children out of excellence, but had given them access to it - and in doing so had shown that excellence and opportunity were not incompatible but could go together. He would say that the enemy of opportunity was rigid uniformity. The truth was that if there were insufficient centres of excellence in our education system, elitism was precisely what you got. He would say that the principle behind comprehensive reform - i.e. equality of opportunity - was right, but the trouble was that it carried with it the notion that all children were the same and that there wasn’t sufficient freedom for schools. The way that the equality versus elitism argument was put had done enormous damage during the past thirty years. He would say that specialist schools, which were up from 187 in 1997 to 1,000 in 2002, had shown that fears of two-tierism were groundless. He would quote the example of Selly Park Technology College for Girls which he was visiting today, which had seen its five good GCSE rating rise from 27% to 70% in just five years. He would say that excellence was not the enemy of equality, but ultimately its instrument. And none of us would be satisfied until every community had an excellent school, whatever route it took to get there.
Put to him that the Prime Minister’s argument essentially boiled down to the fact that all children were equal but that some were more equal than others, the PMOS said he would disagree. The Prime Minister was making the argument that we had to raise standards in all our schools in order to give every child the opportunity he or she deserved. Each child had their own potential which we had to unlock. It was only by having diversity in the post-comprehensive era that we believed it could be achieved. That was why specialist schools and vocational pathways for post-14 education for example were so important.
Asked whether the Chancellor had been shown a draft of the Prime Minister’s speech, the PMOS said he was not aware that the text had been particularly widely circulated within Government. It was entirely consistent with the views of the Department for Education, as the Government spoke with one voice.
Asked the Prime Minister’s thoughts on today’s situation in London where children were being denied opportunity because of industrial action being taken by their teachers, the PMOS drew journalists’ attention to a statement from the Education Secretary today who had said, "A teacher in London starting in 1997 has had their pay increased by 50%. And the independent School Teachers Review Body, in which the teaching unions are involved fully, is looking at further ways to help recruit and retain more teachers in the capital. Striking is simply not the answer and serves only to damage pupils’ education and undermine the teaching profession. It does not help their argument in any way at all".
In answer to further questions, the PMOS supplied journalists with a number of teacher-related statistics. He pointed out that the teacher vacancy rate in London was now 2.7%, compared with 3.5% last year. The teacher vacancy rate overall was 1.2%, down from 1.4% last year. We now had 20,000 more teachers and 80,000 more support staff since 1997, and 9,400 more teachers in the last year, which was the biggest increase in over 20 years. In addition, we were increasing bursaries and introducing golden hellos in shortage subjects. Obviously we were live to the issue in question, which was why we had taken the action we had already taken on improving opportunities and recruitment. However, as Charles Clarke had indicated, this was an issue which was being further looked at independently by the Review Body.
Fire Dispute
The PMOS said that the Deputy Prime Minister would be making a Statement to the House this afternoon on the fire dispute. He had intended to make a Statement yesterday but that plan had been overtaken by events. Today, he would update MPs on the talks he had had with the LGA following his meeting with Sir Jeremy Beecham yesterday. His officials were meeting the employers today. He would underline the point the Prime Minister had made regarding the need for a more stream-lined negotiating team. He would also repeat some of the economic arguments spelled out by the Prime Minister yesterday. To coincide with his Statement, he would publish a Principles Paper which would set out the case for modernisation which we had presented to the Bain inquiry.
Asked why Ian McCartney had been interviewed this morning on the fire dispute when he was a Work and Pensions Minister, the PMOS said that people should not be surprised that Mr McCartney had been doing interviews this morning - in the same way that no one should be surprised that Peter Hain, Charles Clarke, John Reid and others had all spoken on the subject. The dispute was obviously a big issue which was currently dominating the agenda. As a result, there were a number of different Government voices speaking about it. Indeed, people would think it unusual if the same one or two Ministers did the media circuit 24/7, as they would be unable to do anything else. The PMOS took the opportunity to rebut the story about Mr McCartney in today’s papers. He said he did not know where it had come from. There was nothing new about Mr McCartney and an appointment to a role in the dispute. He had always had a function in relation to the Party and had always had a role to play in relation to the unions.
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister had asked Ian McCartney to undertake a specific role to resolve the fire dispute, the PMOS said no. The Deputy Prime Minister was continuing to lead on the issue and the Prime Minister believed that he was doing a very good job. It went without saying that this was a very difficult situation when the FBU were not engaging on modernisation. The Prime Minister thought that Mr Prescott had acted entirely correctly and reasonably in his approach to the dispute in terms of his continuing attempts to encourage dialogue and his decision to set up the independent Bain Review. We hoped that people would see that the way forward was through negotiation. Equally, they had to understand that extra money had to be funded through modernisation.
In answer to questions about transitional funding, the PMOS suggested that people appeared to be approaching this subject from the wrong end of the telescope, as his colleague had said yesterday. As the Prime Minister had stated clearly yesterday, any extra funding had to come from modernisation. That was the starting point. Consequently, we needed to have detailed proposals and detailed number-crunching in order to ascertain what could be saved, what the sequencing of that might be and when it might happen. Until we had serious, detailed, costed proposals together with a rigorous analysis, the question was ultimately theoretical and academic. Professor Bain had said in his interim report that the new reward structure could be ’self-financing in the longer term’. That was very significant. We had been clear that the public spending limits were fixed, that the public spending envelope was sealed, that there would be no claim on the reserve and that there would be no shifting of money from one Departmental budget to another. People had to understand that if they put in an inflation-busting pay claim, they should not be surprised or find it unreasonable for working practices to form part of that equation. Ultimately, issues of transitional funding remained largely academic until such time as there had been real engagement on the modernisation issue and real proposals.
Asked if the Government was planning to operate a smaller fire service once the dispute was resolved and if he would agree that jobs were at risk, the PMOS pointed out that the very thing that would put jobs at risk was if the Government acceded to a pay claim of the magnitude being demanded by the FBU without the extra funding coming from modernisation. That would lead inevitably to pay contagion in the public services. This, in turn, would have a significant impact on inflation because in order to keep to the target set by the Bank of England, interest rates would have to rise. As a result, there would be a knock-on effect on employment. At the moment, we had record numbers of people in work. We also had the lowest unemployment in the G7. Indeed, every region of the UK had a lower unemployment rate than the EU average. No one wanted to put that at risk.
Questioned about the negotiations between the FBU and the employers and any impact on jobs, the PMOS said that the starting point was to consider what was best fire service that could be provided to the public in the most efficient way and with regard to value for money. As we had said consistently from the outset, people with high pay demands should not be surprised if their working practices came under the spotlight. He pointed out that much of the agenda for change which the FBU had been resisting was already happening - albeit sporadically - around the country. For example, fire-fighters in Devon had left the FBU because they wanted to continue to work with other emergency services in a manner which was being blocked nationally by the Union. There were also full time fire-fighters in Berkshire, Hertfordshire and Norfolk who already acted as retained fire-fighters at night in the face of FBU pressure. This meant that they worked their usual hours and then remained on standby in the evening. In Wiltshire, a new joint-control room was nearing completion where the fire, police and ambulance services could work together more closely. The national FBU was opposing this joint control room, despite local FBU agreement. So there were plenty of examples where changes in working practices - which, as the Prime Minister had said yesterday, were not rocket science - were already happening. And this should be the starting point for offering an improved service. This was a national fire service and there should be no ‘postcode lottery’ of where best practice was operating.
Pressed as to whether the process of modernisation could have an internal impact and result in a smaller, professional, full-time fire service, the PMOS said that modernisation meant changes in working practices. Precisely how that might impact on the fire service was for the employers and the Union to sit down and discuss. Obviously they would be informed by the final Bain report which was due in two or three weeks’ time. Professor Bain had promised to provide detailed costings to the savings that could accrue from reform. This was part of the discussion to be had by the two sides. We continued to regret the fact, however, that the FBU had not engaged with Bain. Put to him that until the final Bain report was published, people would only be able to hear one side of the case in terms of costings and transitional funding, the PMOS pointed out that we had always said the 4% increase could be paid now. It was not unreasonable for a negotiating process to continue without the threat of strike action hanging over it. The strikes could be called off now.
Put to him that one of the FBU’s counter-modernisation proposals was to employ fire safety officers which effectively would double the number of professional full-time fire-fighters, the PMOS underlined that the Bain Review was an independent report. Despite attempts to portray him as otherwise, Professor Bain was no Government patsy. He was someone who had introduced the National Minimum Wage. In his review of the national fire service, he was being assisted by a senior former member of the TUC. The inquiry followed an Audit Commission report five years ago which had also suggested real reform and change to the fire service in terms of changing shift patterns and closer co-operation with the other emergency services. It was obvious that the way for this issue to be resolved was for people to sit round the table and discuss the issue of modernisation. Put to him that ‘changing shift patterns’ was a euphemism for a smaller fire service, the PMOS said that these were issues which would have to be thrashed out between the employers and the FBU as part of their discussion process. If people wanted more money over and above the 4% which had already been offered, then it was clear that it had to be funded by changes to archaic working practices which had remained the same since 1977. That meant closer co-operation with other emergency services, joint control rooms, training on defibrillators, changes to shift patterns, ending the ban on overtime and ending the ban on part-time and full-time fire-fighters crewing the same engines. These practices deserved scrutiny and he did not think that it was an unreasonable way to approach the whole issue. The parameters for the discussion between the employers and FBU was the question of how we could provide a modern service which delivered value for money and operated in the most efficient way. If they wanted extra money above the 4%, it had to be funded by modernisation.
Put to him that the Bain Review was not particularly independent in light of the fact that Professor Bain had agreed to head the inquiry knowing that other former union members had turned down the job and that the FBU would not co-operate - which would, essentially, mean that the Government would hear the case for the prosecution and not the defence, the PMOS said that the logical conclusion to the argument was that Professor Bain had not taken his job seriously and had not travelled around the country to carry out his investigation. He had and he was independent. If the FBU had refused to engage in his review, then that was entirely a matter for them. Given this was an independent inquiry on modernisation, the fact that the FBU did not want to engage in it, despite the fact that they had their own proposals, was an indication that the issue of modernisation was not something they particularly wanted to address or were serious about. Challenged that the FBU’s stance was an indication that they wanted to bargain in the normal way and not via some ‘Government-appointed quango’, the PMOS said he was disagree in the strongest terms. He was simply making the point that the independent Bain Review had been considered the most sensible way to resolve the impasse between the employers and the Union. He pointed out that protracted industrial disputes often concluded with an independent inquiry being established where both sides were invited to give evidence. In this instance, we had set up an independent inquiry before any industrial action had even occurred. It was therefore not unreasonable to ask people to co-operate with it.
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that the best fire service had to be one that was the same size as the current fire service, the PMOS said the Prime Minister believed that a modern fire service should be one that was able to work more closely with other emergency services, where archaic bans on overtime and joint working were removed, and where change and reform were underpinned by the principles of public safety and efficiency - exactly as set out by Bain. Asked to explain why all the changes were necessary, the PMOS reminded journalists of the point made by an employer from Cleveland a couple of weeks ago who had said that lives could be saved if firemen in his patch were able to carry defibrillators and were trained up as paramedics. If fire-fighters were the first at a scene of an accident and could give life-saving services, then surely that was a good thing.
Asked if the Government would be willing to consider transitional funding if there were fully costed proposals, the PMOS repeated that before the question could even be asked, it was important to know how much funding people had in mind. It was no use coming at it from the perspective that we would need x amount of transitional funding when people didn’t have a clue what the proposals were which were being costed and what the savings would be. That was simply not in the real world. If we had rigorous costed proposals which, as Bain had recommended, were self financing in the longer term, then that was a wholly separate issue. However, people had to understand that the Government was not in the business of writing blank cheques. There would be no reopening of public spending limits. Any additional funding had to come from modernisation. Issues such sequencing could be approached at the appropriate time, but proposals had to be self-financing. In the meantime, we had to make sure that all the rigorous costed mechanisms and other pieces of work were put in place to ensure that this was a proper argument rather than a theoretical one.
Questioned about the size of the employers’ negotiating body, the PMOS said that everyone recognised that the current structures were unwieldy, which was why officials were discussing the issue today.
Asked for a reaction to Derek Simpson’s remark that the fire strike was a political strike, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had underlined yesterday, we hoped that that was not the intention. The days of conducting industrial disputes through the flexing of industrial muscle were over. He certainly had no intention of getting into a discussion about what the motives behind the fire dispute might or might not be. He would like to think that the FBU were engaging in the issue because they had concerns relating to their members and pay, rather than for any other reason. In that context, it was important for the Government to explain why it was not able to accede to the sort of pay request being put forward and why any extra money had to be met from modernisation.
Asked for a response to the charge that the Prime Minister and MPs had awarded themselves a 40% pay rise, the PMOS said that that was a result of an independent review body process - the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB). The 40% figure had not been plucked out of the air by anyone within Government. It had also been recommended after a five-year pay freeze. Asked if he would accept ‘the broad fact’ that the Prime Minister and MPs had been given a 40% pay rise, the PMOS said that journalists could look up the conclusions of the SSRB just as well as he could. It was disingenuous to say that, were the Government to accede to a pay demand by the FBU of the sort they were making, there would be no corresponding impact in the wider economy. If we acceded to the request by the fire-fighters, how would be able to turn down similar claims from nurses, doctors, soldiers and teachers? Questioned as to why the 40% pay rise for the Prime Minister and MPs was considered affordable when a similar request by the FBU was not, the PMOS said that he had already answered that question. He added that people should not forget there were still vacancies in the teaching profession, although the number was down from 1.4% last year to 1.2% this year. In contrast, the fire service saw forty applicants for every vacancy. Journalists could do their own calculations.
delicious
digg
facebook
