Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Compensation for victims of terrorism, Rory Carroll Kidnapping, Public Sector Pensions, Conference on tackling Islamic Extremism, Trident and Sinn Fein Allowances
Compensation for victims of terrorism
Asked to clear up what the Prime Minister answered at PMQs today about compensation to victims of terror, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that what the Prime Minister was saying was that we were looking at two things. The first was recompense to those affected by the 7/7 bombings and secondly, more broadly at the issue of compensation for people in such cases, and we were also looking at the issue of compensation for those affected by terrorist outrages overseas. As the Prime Minister indicated, however, we were in early days of thinking this issue through, and we were not at the point of firm conclusions.
Asked to explain then why two days ago, the Prime Minister wrote a letter to Tobias Elwood, whose brother was killed in Bali, that said "I do not think that extending the territorial scope of the CICS to provide compensation for British victims of terrorism is a right way forward", the PMOS replied that as things stood at the minute, that was the position. What we were looking at was what did we do about those affected by terrorist outrages overseas as opposed to CICS which focused on domestic issues. The PMOS repeated that we were early in the discussion processes.
Asked if that meant a separate scheme, the PMOS said the journalist was asking him to prejudge the outcome of the discussion, which he would not do. We were in the early days.
Put to the PMOS that that was what the Prime Minister had implied, the PMOS said that people were asking him to say what the result of the process of discussions was going to be before the full discussion had happened.
Put to the PMOS again that "logically" it must be new scheme, rather than the CICS, the PMOS said it was a separate issue, but the discussion needed to happen first, before producing a policy outcome.
Put to the PMOS that the journalists had not put the issue in the public domain, the PMOS said that people always complained that the Government did not give journalists an idea of what we were thinking, but when we did tell people what we were thinking, people arrived at firm conclusions immediately. People could not have their cake, and eat it too!
The PMOS said what he was giving people was the factual position which was that yes, this was an issue we were addressing, but no, we had not reached a firm conclusion. We were doing what responsible governments did, which was thinking.
Asked why we were proposing no pay compensation payments to victims of terrorism overseas, but not victims of ODC general crime, and what was the difference, the PMOS replied that he did not know what more he could say on the subject, as people were asking for firm outcomes on a process that was underway. The PMOS said we would produce the conclusions of the process, but we would not give a running commentary on it.
Asked again for further clarification regarding the Tobias Elwood letter, the PMOS said the Prime Minister was responding to specific proposals in the letter, but what the Prime Minister was thinking about today was how we dealt with the general issue, and that we would do.
Asked if the Government saw a moral difference between people who had been injured in a terrorist attack, or who had suffered injury in another way, the PMOS said that they were all part of the issues that were being considered.
Asked if that included soldiers, the PMOS replied that the Army had its own procedures, and those procedures still applied.
Asked again to clarify how the Prime Minister’s letter to Tobias Elwood did not contradict what he said in Parliament today, the PMOS said that whilst he was not aware of the precise content of the letter, from what was read out, the Prime Minister was responding to a specific proposal. What the Prime Minister was talking about today in the Commons was the general issue of compensating people who had been the victims of terror overseas, not a specific proposal.
Rory Carroll Kidnapping
Asked what the Government’s reaction was to the reported kidnapping of the Irish journalist Rory Carroll, the PMOS said that obviously we were concerned by the reports and the Foreign Office would be working with the newspaper and the family to try and see what the facts were. If there were measures we could take, then we would consider them, but the important thing was that in all these situations, we established what the facts were.
Public Sector Pensions
Asked if the deal on public sector pensions was not a "bit beer and sandwiches", and why did the Prime Minister allow his capitulation just before Adair Turner made the private sector work for longer, the PMOS said that without agreeing to any of the pejorative elements of the question, he would try and answer factually. The Government, of course, consulted unions, the CBI and the Chamber of Commerce, and we were doing so equally over the issue of paternity pay. It was sensible to hold proper discussions, and as a result of those discussions, the public purse would have saved £13 billion by 2050. That was a considerable saving, and that was why the negotiation made sense.
Put to the PMOS that that was a notional saving on an ever-escalating figure, the PMOS said that it was a very real saving in which the unions had agreed to extend the retirement age for new civil servants to 65. That was a real change in conditions for civil servants who were joining, and it did result in a saving of £13 billion.
Asked that as a general principle, did the Prime Minister acknowledge it would be wrong to say that a private sector employee should have inferior pensions arrangements compared to Government employees who were funded by the tax payers, the PMOS replied that there were changed in the private sector that this deal mirrored. What should not be ignored was that there would be a change in the terms and conditions for new civil servants which would result in real savings. The PMOS was sure that people would not want to ignore those real facts.
Put to the PMOS that given the notional £13 billion saving, were people not right in thinking that the other £13 billion in the package was going to be re-invested to the extent that it looked after the pensioners of today in the public sector, at the expense of the pensioners of tomorrow, the PMOS said that the approach to this had been mirrored by what had been the practice in negotiations and deals in the private sector. The PMOS suggested that people spoke to the DTI for more clarification.
Conference on tackling Islamic Extremism
Asked if the Prime Minister was still exploring the idea of hosting an international conference on combating Islamic extremism, as he had said some months ago, the PMOS said that work and discussions did continue on it. Equally, the Prime Minister had said that there were conferences taking place in the Islamic world that we would want to contribute and help with, and we were doing that. The PMOS said the FCO had more details on this issue.
Trident
Asked if the Prime Minister was suggesting that there would be an opportunity for the Commons to vote on a replacement for Trident, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister’s words spoke for themselves, and we were not at that point.
Asked again what the Prime Minister’s words meant, the PMOS said that they meant there would be a debate.
Asked if that meant no vote, the PMOS said the Prime Minister had said what he said.
Sinn Fein Allowances
Asked why the decision was taken to give Sinn Fein back their allowances, the PMOS replied that the IMC report that ran up until the end of August, said that during that period, IRA activity had come to an end. Equally, the two Governments had the knowledge of what had been happening in September and October as well. On the basis of that, our basic approach had been "so far, so good", but equally, if the IMC report in January were to report IRA activity, then the matter could be reconsidered at that stage.
The PMOS explained that the report published today covered the period from March 2005 until August 2005. The report published in January would cover the period from September until January 2006.
Asked if the IMC monitored banks, the PMOS said they monitored everything!
delicious
digg
facebook
