Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Newsnight, Phillis Report and EU enlargement.
Newsnight
Asked why the Prime Minister had chosen to face critics of the Government’s policy on tuition fees by agreeing to participate in a Newsnight special debate on the issue, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the Prime Minister had done it because he believed in taking on the criticisms. In his view, our arguments were sound, as the lack of any viable alternative had shown.
Asked the message which the Prime Minister would want to send to Backbenchers when he next met them, the PMOS said that, as a Civil Servant, he was unable to comment on party matters. However, the overall position on tuition fees was clear. This was obviously a very carefully thought-through package which dealt with the question of how to encourage students from poorer backgrounds into higher education, at the same time as giving universities the extra investment they needed to compete on a global scale and maintain our reputation as having some of the best universities in the world.
Asked if the Prime Minister would now accept that creating a policy in Downing Street and imposing it on others was not a good way to conduct business in the future, the PMOS pointed out that the source of the policy was the history of under-investment in university education and the need to widen access to students from poorer backgrounds. The publication of the paper from DfES this afternoon suggested that the Government was listening to the concerns being expressed. However, there was a real issue that needed to be addressed and we would not shy away from that. Pressed further, the PMOS said we accepted that this was a difficult and complex issue and it would clearly take time for people to think it through carefully because it involved difficult decisions. However, as the debate had progressed, and as the tone of many editorials on this subject had reflected, people were beginning to realise that there was a problem, that we needed to find a solution to it and that what was being proposed was a fair way to fund our universities. Asked to verify a report suggesting that the vote on tuition fees might be moved to Monday 26 January, the PMOS said that he had no reason to believe that there was any truth in that report. As far as he was aware, the vote would go ahead on Tuesday 27 January.
Phillis Report
Asked if the Prime Minister wanted to see Ministers waiving their right of veto over the release of information under the new Freedom of Information (FoI) Act, as recommended by the Phillis Report, by the end of this year, the PMOS said that while the FoI Act was clearly a major step towards openness, it was important to understand that it was not due to come into effect until 2005. That was why it was important for us to see it in operation and assess it in the light of Phillis and any other views that might be expressed between now and the time the Act was due to come into effect. Put to him that it seemed the Government was turning down the recommendation, the PMOS said that he would disagree. The Government wanted to see it in operation. However, there was obviously a time lag. This was because it was necessary to take the time to prepare for the FoI Act to come into effect. Put to him that the delay was suggestive of a luke-warm response by the Government to the recommendations, the PMOS said that he would disagree. In actual fact, it was a sensible response inasmuch as the Act, despite only coming into effect in 2005, was clearly a significant step forward and would result in important changes through which people would be able to obtain information. We would assess and review the situation once the Act actually came into effect.
EU Enlargement
Asked why the British Government, in contrast to other EU countries, did not derogate the policy allowing workers from the accession countries to travel freely to existing member states, the PMOS said that we were not the only country to be going down this route. Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Greece had all stated their intentions to follow our example. It was also important to recognise that, following previous enlargements, for example when Greece, Spain and Portugal had joined, there had been similar predictions of vast numbers of migrants coming to the UK which, ultimately, had been proven wrong. The Home Office had also conducted further and more detailed research which predicted that there would only be a relatively small increase in the number of workers travelling to existing EU member states after enlargement. In addition, it was important for people to recognise that the UK needed a supply of workers with suitable skills in areas such as hospitality catering and agriculture. That was why the move had been supported both by the CBI and the TUC. Moreover, the concern that people were coming here to claim benefits was groundless because they would, first-and-foremost, have to meet the Habitual Residence Test which would take three to six months in any event. During that time, they would not be allowed to claim any benefits. Thus, in summary, if past experience was anything to go by the predicted influx would not happen, managed migration was necessary to meet our economic needs and there were safeguards in place to prevent the abuse of our benefits system. Asked what the Home Office’s projection was, the PMOS said that the most likely net migration trend to the UK was between 5,000 and 13,000 citizens a year. Put to him that the Home Office had a far-from-perfect record in predicting things and in terms of its migration policy in general, the PMOS pointed to the improvements that had been made to the asylum system in the last year.
Asked if he would agree that the Government had failed to get its message across following a Mori survey for Prospect Magazine which highlighted people’s concerns about race and immigration issues, the PMOS said that we would continue to try to convey our message. We acknowledged that there were concerns about asylum. However, we were trying to address them through our policies. Equally, we tried to respond to stories - like today’s Sun front-page splash - with facts.
Asked if it would be more practical to have a work-permit scheme so that migration could be managed more effectively instead of having a free-for-all, the PMOS said that a free market meant a free market and a single market meant a single market. He repeated that both the CBI and TUC supported the policy because it was clear that the UK needed a supply of workers with suitable skills. Asked if he was implying it was a free market, the PMOS said no. He was simply making the point that there was a single market within the EU which had many benefits - and of which the UK had taken advantage. Asked why the UK was the only ‘large’ EU nation to have taken the decision not to derogate the policy, the PMOS said that, in terms of macroeconomics, we supported the single market and managed migration, which suited our economy. Asked if he was really suggesting that non-derogation had not been a mistake or an oversight on the part of the Government, the PMOS said yes.
Asked if the Government was at all concerned that people living in ‘distressed circumstances’ would make a beeline for the UK, as reported in today’s Sun, the PMOS repeated that the Home Office’s detailed research showed that similar worries and concerns that had been expressed in the past had not been borne out.
delicious
digg
facebook
