22 May 2003
At his latest press conference the Prime Minister briefed journalists on a range of issues including the Euro, asylum figures and Iraq.
Read a transscript of the Prime Minister’s press conference
Prime Minister
There are a number of issues which you want to ask me about, and I would like briefly to mention four by way of opening: the Euro, the Convention on the Future of Europe, the current state of play on the United Nations Security Council Resolution, and the Asylum issue.
On the Euro, the Chancellor and I have spent much of this week in discussion with our Cabinet colleagues and we have just had the first of two full Cabinet discussions in advance of the Chancellor’s statement next month. I think there is an emerging consensus from those discussions which have been serious and detailed and reflect our determination to try and make the right decision, but also make it in the right way. Each member of the Cabinet, and today the Cabinet as a whole, has made it clear their support for the principle of joining the single currency with its potential benefits to Britain, British jobs and industry, and the standard of living of the British people, and in addition each has made it clear that that decision of course must be based on a rigorous assessment of our long-term economic interests. It is the biggest decision we face as a Government, we have to get it right and I am confident, based upon the discussions we have had so far, that we will.
On the Convention which I will shortly be discussing with Prime Minister Simitis, it is as well to remember why this debate on the future of Europe is taking place. It arises out of the enlargement of the European Union from 15 to 25 and then other countries will join, so we could have a European Union in the next few years of anywhere between 25 and 30 countries. Necessarily, in order to make that enlarged European Union work, we have got to make changes in the way that Europe conducts its business. Some of the opposition to the Convention has been misleading in the extreme, some of it simply factually wrong. But all of it - or pretty much all of it - designed to get the British people in the position where we turn our backs on Europe. I believe passionately that it is in Britain’s national interest to be part of the European Union, and I also believe that enlargement of the European Union is in the British national interest.
I think in addition what has been exposed during the course of the few days of this debate has been the agenda of those who frankly are not merely opposed to the Convention, and are opposing it incidentally before its conclusions have even been published, but are opposed to the whole concept of Britain playing a vital and strategic role in Europe. I don’t think there can be anything more damaging for British influence, for British jobs, for British industry than if Britain were to retreat to the margins of Europe.
On Iraq, there will be a vote in the United Nations today to agree a new Security Council Resolution. That will give us a solid basis for the reconstruction of Iraq, for the continuing delivery of humanitarian assistance, with the UN playing the vital role that we promised. It will also lift sanctions, wind down the Oil-for-Food Programme, and invite the UN Secretary-General to appoint a Special Representative to work with the coalition forces. And that work will be in every single aspect of the reconstruction of Iraq, in terms of its public services and its infrastructure, in terms of humanitarian aid and assistance, in terms of the politics. This will be a further important step towards delivering a stable Iraq, run for the Iraqi people, by the Iraqi people.
On the issue of asylum, people rightly expect a robust and fair system that is free from exploitation and able to cope. And it is precisely because we have recognised that that has not been the case that we have put in place the changes set out in the legislation that was passed through Parliament last November. And the figures that are published today by the Home Office show that we have turned the corner. The relentless focus that we have put is on cutting the number of asylum applications, and whatever the difficulties in all the other aspects of the asylum system, believe me I have gone through this in the most painstaking detail myself, there is no answer to this that will have any validity, unless it reduces the number of asylum applications.
The numbers have fallen now by more than 45% since we passed the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act last year, with 4,500 applications in March compared with almost 9,000 in October last year.
So we remain fully on track to meet our pledge to cut applications by half by September. The figures also show, incidentally, that we are removing record numbers of those whose claims do not succeed, deciding more appeals, and reducing the number waiting for an initial decision.
However we are by no means complacent about what we have achieved already. That is why I also welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement this morning that we will draw up further legislation to continue to bear down on the abuse of the system.
And the Government is considering action in three areas. First we want to tackle asylum applicants who lodge groundless appeals, to frustrate the process and delay removal, and we will do that by introducing a single tier of appeal. Secondly, we want to tackle the problem of asylum seekers who deliberately destroy or dispose of documents in order to make fraudulent claims and prevent removal, which is unacceptable.
And thirdly, we are looking to make changes to deal with some of the abuses of the Legal Aid system. It is obviously a long haul, but we will continue to keep up the pressure. But I am pleased with the progress that has been made so far, and that progress I can tell you on the basis of the weekly figures that I receive is continuing to improve.
Question and Answer Session
So that is all I have to say by way of opening and now we can have some Questions.
Question
Prime Minister you said just now that a new UN Resolution would give you a solid legal basis for what is going to happen in Iraq. Doesn’t the leak of the Attorney-General’s letter suggest that you haven’t had that solid basis up to now. You have gone quite a long stage beyond simply restoring law and order, and rather vindicate Clare Short?
Prime Minister
No, the … I am not going to comment on the precise nature of the Attorney-General’s advice except to say this, that his advice throughout has been that the Government has been acting lawfully. It is always the case that we wanted a fresh United Nations Resolution, and I believe with the passage of that Resolution then it will be absolutely clear from now on that we are working with the UN, under international law, in order to reconstruct Iraq. But it is completely wrong to say that at any point in time the Attorney-General has said that the Government was acting unlawfully. We would never act unlawfully in relation to this.
If the Attorney-General were to advise us that a particular course of action were unlawful, of course we would have to act on that advice but in any event, as I say, to be absolutely blunt all these things have been overtaken by the UN Resolution today. And I am really pleased about this. I think the passage of the United Nations Resolution allows the international community to come back together again, it gives added hope to people in Iraq, it allows us to put behind us some of the divisions of the past, and get on with the business of reconstructing Iraq for the Iraqi people.
Question
Prime Minister, in the four areas which you listed, you didn’t list one which I suspect is taking up an awful lot of your time at the moment privately, which is national security. All of us can see around us extraordinary levels of security: machine gun patrols on the streets, barriers where there were previously none. Can you tell the country anything about what level of threat you currently think there is from Al-Qaeda and international terrorism to people here at home?
Prime Minister
The truthful answer is that we have good evidence from what Al-Qaeda is doing around the world that they have totally evil intent towards us, towards any country frankly. Who would have said that Morocco was in the forefront of the campaign against Al-Qaeda, or anything to do with the military action in Iraq, and yet these people are willing to kill totally innocent people, in whatever part of the country, in whatever part of the world they decide to take their terrorist campaign. In respect of this country, all I can say is that we have increased levels of vigilance precisely because we can see very obviously the threat that Al-Qaeda pose. We continue to act on any specific pieces of intelligence that we have, but I think it is frankly almost a statement of the obvious that with what is going on in the world we have to make sure that we are taking every single precaution, and we do although the difficulty with these people is that they are prepared to kill any number of innocent people without any compunction whatever. And I would just point out that in the last few weeks that of course the majority of people who died in terrorist attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda have been Moslems.
Question
Prime Minister, I think you said this morning that every member of your Cabinet has reaffirmed their belief in principle in joining the Euro, and you certainly said that you have a passionate belief that Britain should play a leading role in Europe. I wonder if I could ask you why this Government is so out of touch with the mood of the British people inasmuch as it would appear that in a Referendum you might hold on the Euro you would get a no vote, and in the Referendum you won’t hold on the Constitution you would also get a no vote, and do you think that’s in any sense a personal failure of your leadership that there seems to be such a separation between you and British public opinion?
Prime Minister
There’s a big debate going on in the country which I think is important we engage in on Europe, and I welcome that. I’m not sure that public opinion is in quite the settled place that some of those that are viscerally opposed to Europe say. I think that when people really reflect upon it, they understand that it is not sensible for Britain to separate itself out from Europe in this day and age when the whole of the world is coming closer, and when it is vitally important that Britain is in Europe arguing for the type of Europe that we want to see, where 60% of our trade is with Europe, a major part of our political influence is bound up with Europe, the future of our economy is bound up with Europe. Now this is a debate that I think will go through many stages, and as we have seen it is possible for opinion polls to change and I simply think that in any event, whatever comes out of the assessment on 9 June, there is a big debate that will happen in this country about Europe. I relish that, and I relish being part of it.
Question
A couple of Questions on the Euro. On the process of involving Cabinet Ministers. Is this genuine? Are they really going to be able to affect the Treasury assessment, I mean separately from the political decision about the single currency. Can they affect what the Treasury has decided about the five tests, and secondly do you think that a road map would have advantages in terms of pointing the way ahead, and allow you and other members of the Cabinet to start campaigning more positively on the positive advantages of the single currency?
Prime Minister
On the first point, there’s a process of discussion and of course it is important as to what judgements we come out with on 9 June that that is a thorough process, and it has been actually, and I’ve been both - I won’t say surprised but I have been pleased at the degree to which this is something that the whole of the Cabinet has felt engaged in, because it is of vital importance to the country. Exactly what we say by way of how we take this forward, I think we will have to wait for 9 June, but I think there is a very strong emerging consensus. People in the Cabinet believe that Britain’s membership of the single currency is in principle the right thing, but they recognise that it has got to be done in a way that is consistent with the short and long term economic interests of the country, and I think you will find on 9 June those people who are expecting that there will be some great disagreement, I think will be sorely disappointed. And of course I think everybody recognises that there is then a big discussion that has to be had with the country because it is important for the Cabinet to come to its view, but then it is important that this is something that is taken out and discussed thoroughly with the country.
Question
Prime Minister, how worried are you that the 12 Euro-zone countries are demanding a greater say in the economic decisions for the whole of the European Union. What would you acknowledge as the potential political setbacks of a decision not to have a Euro referendum now, and do you regard whatever comes out of the current economic tests, do you regard it as inevitable that this country will join the Euro at some stage?
Prime Minister
In relation to the last point, we have said all the way through it is dependent on the economic tests, and that must be the case. In respect of the Euro-zone countries it is natural that they should want to look carefully at how their own economies are affected particularly by their membership of the single currency, but I don’t think there is any doubt if we look at Britain’s influence within ECOFIN over the past few years, and this is in part I think a tribute to Gordon Brown’s standing and influence within ECOFIN, that we have played a full part in the way that European economic policy has been fashioned, and I think it is important of course that people understand that we are in favour of the principle of people coming in to the single currency because if people thought we were in principle against it altogether, well I think that would marginalise our influence.
Question
… the penalty for not being there at this stage?
Prime Minister
Well, let’s wait till we come to the assessment on 9 June if you don’t mind.
Question
A couple of things Prime Minister. You are talking about the European Convention and Constitution. You make great play of the fact that there will be red lines that you will draw on areas where you won’t surrender the veto. Can you tell the British voters which areas of domestic policy you are prepared to give up the veto in, and second on asylum figures although you are hailing today’s figures as very strong and going in the right direction, is it also the case that today’s figures show that 54,000 people or thereabouts claimed asylum illegally last year, but only 14,000 were kicked out. Doesn’t that illustrate the real problem that we are up against, that we are not moving enough people who shouldn’t be here out of the country?
Prime Minister
In respect of the first point, there may well be areas in which it is in our interests as a country to have qualified majority voting, and this is one of the big debates that we have got to have so that we can explain to people why that is the case. Look, Britain is fighting hard at the moment for agricultural reform in Europe. It is vitally important for Europe and for the world. There is no point in our saying that we are in favour of helping the poorer countries in the world unless there is reform of Europe’s agricultural policy. Without qualified majority voting we couldn’t possibly get reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.
Now we have made sure that we protect through the protocol we negotiated in Amsterdam completely Britain’s borders. That is secure. But there are areas in relation to asylum and home affairs policy where we may well want to move forward on a common European basis and where it is in our interests to have qualified majority voting. On the other hand the fundamental issues, and this is why with the greatest respect I think it is wrong for people to say the changes, if they take the shape that I am anticipating, justify a Referendum. The changes that might justify a Referendum, for example if we were yielding up control of British foreign policy or defence policy - that was to become Commission, not inter-governmental, it was to be done in Brussels and not in Britain - that would be a fundamental constitutional change, but I don’t think there is any prospect of that being the case. I think we will win that argument within Europe. Likewise in relation to our tax rate. And never forget, the biggest extension of qualified majority voting was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher for the 1986 Single European
Act, and what is more she was entirely right to do so. It was in our country’s interests.
Now on the asylum question, yes we do need to make sure that we are doing more on removals as well. And I would just point out the fact that we are removing more failed asylum seekers than any other country in Europe, and what is more we are removing many more than we were several years ago. However, the absolute key to this, believe me, isbringing down the numbers of people who come in to claim asylum. If youdon’t get the applications down, you will find it hard to make headway on the removals. And that is why reducing the numbers of applications is absolutely essential, and incidentally I note it is said by people that all that has happened is that the figures are all fiddled and what we are doing is we are giving people a route in through work permits and not through asylum. Let me just deal with this. First of all, inrelation to the asylum figures, they are calculated in exactly the same way that they have been for years and years and years, and just as in the same way when the asylum figures were rising no-one said the figures were fiddled, I think when they are falling on exactly the same basis, people should take that as good news, because it is.
The second point is the work permit business is a complete and total red herring. It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the asylum system. Employers apply for a work permit. Work permits aren’t given to asylum seekers, and if you look and we have put out the statement today of the top countries in relation to work permits, and the countries in relation to asylum, you will see that they are either different countries, or the figures couldn’t possibly be said to translate from one to the other. For example in the top countries who get work permits, you have got the United States of America. You’ve got Japan. The fact is we are making progress on asylum. Is there still a lot more to do? Of course there’s a lot more to do, but it is important that we deal with this issue for all sorts of reasons, and we are.
Question
I wonder if you could tell us if there are any special efforts being done by your government to have this road map move towards peace, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. And how can you move if one of the parties does not even accept it?
Prime Minister
Well I hope we can make progress on this in the next couple of weeks.
And let’s just remember, a few weeks ago people were saying to me there was no chance the road map would be published; a few months ago people were saying America is not serious in taking this forward at all.
America plainly is serious, the road map has been published, yes we have got to get universal acceptance of it, and then frankly, more important than anything else, within that context so that everyone accepts the two state solution, you have got to start negotiating the first steps on security, on the lifting of restrictions and so forth. So I remain hopeful we will push this forward, but there is really no more important issue in the world today than making sure we make that progress and we will carry on from Britain doing everything we can in order to ensure that happens.
Question
I just want to go back predictably to the Euro. You seem to be implying that whatever happens you were going to have to have a political debate about Europe and that you would have to try and gather support for Europe. Do you also accept that you are going to have to do more to prepare the British economy to join, to take positive steps towards joining, towards conversion? And also, do you think that Europe itself is going to have to change the way it deals with certain things, flexibility, those kinds of things, the stability pact, before we can join?
Prime Minister
As Gordon was saying the other night in relation to changes that we may need to make as a country, that is one of the things that we will be talking about when we publish the assessment on 9 June. And in respect of Europe, yes it is important it is not in any sense a test and we are not creating a sixth test for membership, but it is important that we drive forward economic reform in Europe. Look, it is perfectly obvious that if you have the single market and the single currency area, it works very effectively, but it does require greater flexibility in the economies of Europe, and that is why we have been leading the charge for European economic reform and it is important that that happens. And in relation to the political debate in Europe, well I think that is going to happen in any event, but I welcome it, I think it is an important debate for this country to have, because the thing that is most frustrating for me sometimes is that I can see so clearly how Britain can play an enormous part in Europe to the benefit of our economy and to the benefit of our country, and Britain should have the confidence we can win these arguments in Europe, because we can, and usually when we put our mind to it we do.
Question
The United States has publicly accused Iran of harbouring al Queda cells and believes that those cells directed the bombings in Riyadh. My question is, does Britain also think that is the case, and has Britain, which unlike the United States, has relations with Tehran, communicated that same stern message to the Iranians?
Prime Minister
We are concerned at these reports, which we have obviously discussed with the United States of America, and we have said very clearly to the Iranian government that harbouring al Queda would be entirely unacceptable. And I hope very much, if they are indeed harbouring al Queda operatives, that they yield them up, because these people, as we can see, are dangerous evil people who are hell bent on killing as many innocent people as they possibly can. And one thing that is becoming very, very clear right round the world is that it is an unacceptable part of any serious international relations for the future that countries harbour terrorists.
Question
I am interested in the political debate that you want to get going in the country after 9 June, is it to persuade people of the virtues of the Euro or of Europe, and what do you want to achieve? And just one I am sure you won’t want to answer, do you feel that in this debate you are obsessed with your place in history, as Clare Short suggested?
Prime Minister
Well you have given me a very good let-out for not answering the last part of that. In respect of the first, well I think we will have the opportunity to have a serious discussion and debate about this, which will be about Britain and its place in Europe, it will be about the nature of Europe, and this flows on actually from the discussions we had in relation to Iraq and our relationship with the United States of
America as well, and one of the big issues will be that I think there are many people - left and right - who want to push us into a position where we choose between the US or Europe and I think that is a false choice. Now whether that is a tenable position will be tested through the public debate that will follow, and I think there are great advantages for us in having this debate, I think it is a debate that Britain should have. Now that will be in the context obviously of the debate about the single currency in relation to the convention and so on, but I think in any event it is high time that debate was had.
Question
Have you at any stage in the past year offered or talked about striking a deal with Gordon Brown which would leave him to take your position as a result of leading us into the Euro?
Prime Minister
I wasn’t quite sure what you were going to lead into actually, the first part of that, but the answer is no.
Question
Isn’t the only basis for an asylum policy that if someone is a genuine asylum seeker, they get the chance to claim asylum and it will be granted? You seem to be turning the system on its head by saying it is all about the numbers and getting the applications down. Is that acceptable?
Prime Minister
I don’t quite understand that one, I have to say.
Question
For instance, if there was an upsurge in people who were considered to be genuine asylum seekers coming from some sort of conflict, the logic of your position is I am sorry it is still all about keeping the numbers down.
Prime Minister
That is a perfectly sensible point. If people are genuine asylum seekers they should be granted asylum, but the reason why this is an issue is that people know the asylum system is being abused, that there are people coming in through the asylum system that are not genuine asylum seekers. Now it is precisely for that reason that we have taken the measures in order to make sure that people are processed through the asylum system properly, and the key to that is making sure that anybody who has got an asylum claim makes the asylum claim properly at the point of entry, with the proper documentation if they have travelled from somewhere, rather than a situation where they try and smuggle themselves in, or they are part of an organised criminal racket, or they are simply economic migrants who have a perfectly good right to claim economic migration, but shouldn’t be claiming through the asylum route, and that is the reason why numbers are important. This is an issue that arises, not because people are uncertain about the numbers of genuine asylum seekers, but because people are certain, and because it is the case, that too many people claiming asylum at the moment are not genuine, and that is the reason we have given for the legislation that we have introduced. And therefore the numbers are important because we are getting the numbers down by removing the abuses in the system, so that we will know, if people are genuine asylum seekers, their claim can be looked at and processed properly.
Question
Of the 34 referendums that you have conceded so far since you have been in power, what criteria did you use to assess whether these were issue that were appropriate to put to people in a referendum?
Prime Minister
Where there is a fundamental alteration of our constitution, locally it could be, or nationally, for example in Scotland and Wales, or in London, where we were altering the entire system by which we were governed. Let’s wait and see what comes out of the convention or intergovernmental conference that people are calling for a referendum on before the proposals have even been published. The intergovernmental conference won’t conclude for many, many months, but on the basis of what is presently being proposed, it simply is nonsense to suggest that this fundamentally alters the nature of Britain as a nation state. It is just nonsense.
Question
Inaudible.
Prime Minister
No, I am not leaving the door open at all, unless something absolutely dramatic happens in the convention I haven’t foreseen, but I don’t think it will. Because one of the things that happens is this convention, not the convention but the intergovernmental conference of course is dealt with on a unanimous basis, so unless Britain agrees to the intergovernmental conference conclusions, the stuff doesn’t go through.
Question
Inaudible.
Prime Minister
No, the point surely is this, this is why I gave the example earlier of foreign and defence policy. Look, the case being made by people who are saying we should have a referendum is for example that after this negotiation, Britain will no longer be in charge of its foreign or defence policy. Now at the moment that is not what is being proposed, what is being proposed is precisely the opposite, that foreign policy and defence should remain with governments, not with the Brussels Commission. And so all the scare stories that in future Britain wouldn’t be able, for example as has been said, to mount the Iraq operation unless other European countries agreed is just nonsense, it is simply not true.
Question
While accepting obviously that the Euro is a very important decision, five days before that you have another key decision to take on the Capital of Culture bids, with Newcastle Gateshead in with a strong shout. How tough a call is that going to be?
Prime Minister
You are from my own patch and I really would like to give you a helpful answer, but.
Question
Two months in a row, Prime Minister, we need one.
Prime Minister
I know, that is right, but there are also many, many other cities that are competing for this and there will be a recommendation given to us by an independent committee, as you know, and I think I shouldn’t speculate on anything before then. Try and handle that in a sympathetic way in the Tyne Tees bulletin tonight please.
Question
Last night at the bicentenary dinner you mentioned the important role that the press plays in parliamentary democracy. Do you think the Daily Mail is actually serving that role by setting up its own referendum?
And there appears to have been a kind of upsurge in euro-scepticism, to what extent do you think that has been informed by the failure of Germany and France to participate in the Iraq action?
Prime Minister
Well first of all my kind comments about the press shouldn’t be taken as any general form of concession. But the Daily Mail and any other newspaper are entitled to do whatever they want. I think obviously some of the coverage makes people concerned. Look, if people are being told for example that we have just been through the Iraq conflict and people think well it was the right thing to do it, and they are going to think from now on, if some person in Brussels says we can’t do that, the British Army can’t do it, I should think people are pretty worried about it. I think also because of what we have been through, which has been a painful process in Europe with the divisions, yes I think all these things affect opinion. But I really do think about these issues that there are two different levels at which the public has a view, there is a general impression and then when the argument starts to develop people think about it, and I think Europe is the classic example of an issue that when people really think about it, they think in a different way from some of the headlines.
I think when people really think about Europe I think they will think about it differently, they will realise that it is important for this country to be part of Europe, they will realise that if you are to be part of it there is no point in being a destructive member of Europe, you might as well be a constructive member fully engaged, and they will realise that in economic and political terms in a world of increasing globalisation, it would be a very odd thing if we separated ourselves from the key alliance on our doorstep. Now I think people will think about these things in a more profound way. And I actually don’t resent the newspaper campaign at all, I think it gives us the chance to have the debate and have it properly, and maybe it is not before time that we do.
Question
How much harder is it to have the sensible sober debate that you want to have on the Euro and other things, when friends of yours like Peter Mandelson do turn it into issues of personality?
Prime Minister
Well we said what we said on that yesterday and I don’t think we should go back into it again. I think in the end all that will be pushed to one side and people will have a serious debate about the economics of this. After all, a debate about the single currency is about your mortgage, it is about your job, it is about the company you work for, it is a pretty serious debate and I think people will conduct it at that level in the end.
Question
How do you reconcile the answer that you gave to Iain Duncan Smith a week ago yesterday in the House of Commons that you wouldn’t countenance doing anything unlawful in the reconstruction of Iraq, an assertion you repeated this morning to Andrew Marr, with the full legal advice that we publish today from the Attorney General in which he says in terms that any and every action by British forces as part of the occupying power, over and above essential stabilisation and self-defence, would until such time as there is a UN Security Council Resolution, namely the last 5 weeks, be illegal?
Prime Minister
For the reason I gave a moment or two ago. And I am not going into the detail of the Attorney General’s advice, although you shouldn’t think that the construction that you are putting on the advice is necessarily the right one at all. But I can assure you that the Attorney General has advised us throughout that what we are doing is lawful, and in any event frankly, we have got the UN resolution that is coming through today. But look, for any Prime Minister or Cabinet in a situation as fraught and sensitive as this, to have advice from the Attorney General saying you are acting unlawfully and just to say well we are not bothering with that, we are just carrying on, it is not a very credible position to be honest, and I can absolutely assure you there is no question of us having engaged in such a thing.
Question
What were you thinking of when you allowed a promise to go into your 2001 general election manifesto that your government would not introduce top-up fees. Do you regret making that promise and how can you justify your compliance with it being somewhat less than 100%?
Prime Minister
Well it is not going to be, because we said when we will introduce the top-up fees, so there is no way that we will break that manifesto promise. But in the end, quite apart from that, let’s get to the substance of the issue, it is a very tough issue this because it is a hard choice for any government to make. The easy thing to do is to say we will give you everything for free, but I think most people, whatever background they come from, when they are sending their children to university, they want to know that the education they are going to get at that university is a quality education. Now the truth is for years funding per student has been falling at our universities and our universities have been falling behind those in America and elsewhere in circumstances where again this is a global market today.
It is no use British kids going to British universities if the degree they get out of those universities isn’t a top quality degree.
Therefore we have to get more money into universities and this Government is actually putting more money in, but they need even more, and we either get that money from raising everybody’s taxes, or we say to people look we will abolish up-front fees, top-up or otherwise, but we will say to you if we are going to make this investment in your education, you as a student also have some obligation to contribute something when you are earning money as a graduate. And I know it is a difficult argument, but I think again it is an argument that we will win when people really think about the options.
Question
The message that people in Holland, and I am sure all over Europe are getting, is that Britain is not going to join the Euro, and I think it is also what you are going to be telling the world on the 9th. Where does that leave Britain? How do you think Britain can still be taken seriously in Europe?
Prime Minister
I think you should wait for 9 June and I think when that happens people will be able to make a judgement not on the speculation, but on the reality of the position, which I think will be a lot more helpful.
Question
At your last press conference you said with some asperity that those who were sceptical about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq shouldn’t be so confident. Now a month has passed and the weapons have not been found. Did your argument about this before the war represent the triumph of hope, or spin, or experience, or a massive intelligence failure?
Prime Minister
Neither, because I would repeat exactly the answer I gave to you last month. What we have said is that we will accumulate this evidence and then present it to people in a proper and ordered way, but I have absolutely no doubt at all that we will be able to show convincing and conclusive evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
Question
Isn’t it surprising that it is taking so long with the extent of military coverage of Iraq now and the size of the programme?
Prime Minister
No, I don’t think it is very surprising actually. First of all, our two main priorities have been sorting out the security situation and the end of the conflict and the humanitarian situation. We are well aware of the fact that for people in Iraq now the issue for them is not weapons of mass destruction, the issue is getting security, getting the services running and so on. Secondly, we have put in place a process, and I think I did say this last time, it is a deliberative process that will take time, where we are interviewing scientists and experts and witnesses, and I can assure you we are getting a lot of information from them, as well as finding things, some of which have been in the news, like the trailers for what we believe to be mobile biological weapons laboratories. Now I think when we present all that evidence, accumulate] it over a period of time with a process of people visiting all these sites and getting the evidence, I think it will be very, very clear.
And the one thing I would simply say to people is that with this issue, look it is not as if there was a big question mark over Saddam and weapons of mass destruction, that no-one ever thought he had any, but suddenly we thought he might and based on a bit of intelligence went in there and invaded Iraq. The reason why there was 12 years of UN resolutions about him and weapons of mass destruction is that we know for sure he has had weapons of mass destruction, we know for sure he has concealed them over a significant period of time, and we know for sure that he has obstructed the inspectors in getting to them. So this is not a situation in which we are in virgin territory, we know what the record is, and all I can tell you is from the information I am getting that I am very confident, as I was last month. But when we come out and announce all this to you, that may take some time because it is not frankly the key priority right at this minute for us, it is putting Iraq back on its feet.
Question
Since we first saw you win that Prime Ministers’ cycle race in Amsterdam 6 years ago, we have had 6 years of you telling us that you are a passionate pro-European, meanwhile opinion polls in this country have moved your way on the Euro, so somehow the message doesn’t come home. Could you tell me which list of arguments you will use to persuade the British people and the British newspapers that the Euro is a good thing?
Prime Minister
Well first of all since those 6 years we have played I think a very constructive part in debates to do with defence, on economic reform and now on the European constitution. But I think the arguments are the arguments I was just giving a moment or two ago, that in the end is it sensible for Britain to be part of the European Union - yes, for reasons to do with our economy, our influence in the world, the jobs and industry that depend on it. If we are to be a member, is it sensible for us to be a half-hearted member? We might as well be in there making British influence properly count, and those are the arguments that I think in the end will bring people round. But Europe is not just an argument that goes on in Britain, as you know, it is an argument that happens in Holland and in other countries around Europe, and that is why
I think it is very, very important that the result that we get out of this debate about Europe is based on a Europe of nation states and not a federal super state. I think if Europe was to move in the direction of a federal super state, that would lose a lot of the opinion in Europe as a whole, because I think people in Europe realise the importance of the European Union and countries co-operating together, but don’t want to sacrifice their national identity.
Question
You were talking about the British and American and some European countries’ participation of building up Iraq, do you accept any participation from the Arab countries ever, and in which field?
Prime Minister
We would certainly welcome participation from Arab countries. We are in discussion with some about that. And I think the passing of the UN resolution will make it a lot easier for Arab countries and indeed other countries in the world to help in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Question
You were talking about is it sensible for Britain to be a half hearted member in Europe, but if the current economic environment with the Euro very high, the American dollar slipping and your own economic indicators doing very well, is this in fact one of the hardest environments to try and sell switching to the Euro to British people?
Prime Minister
Well there have been other things of course that have happened, not least the change in the exchange rate for Britain that makes a difference the other way if you like. But no I think that you have got to take a judgement actually on the overall long term economic interest, and that is what we will do. But there is a reason why we set out the policy 6 years ago being in principle in favour, and that is because if the economics are right, the benefits in terms of lower mortgages, in terms of lower transaction costs for business and industry, in terms of trade, are potentially very significant and those are some of the things we will be discussing when we publish the assessment on 9 June. But the thing we have said all the way through, and let me repeat this so that no-one is in any doubt about what my position is, we have to make sure that it is in our long term economic interest and that the economics are in the right place, because this is not simply a political judgement or decision, it is of vital importance for the economy of Britain.
Question
But you have to realise the … to be able to win the argument in Britain for the pound to join the Euro, you are going to have to be able to prove to the British people that not being part of the single currency is to your detriment. So far that argument has not been able to be made, because on the contrary, Britain is doing much better than your continental partners. So my question is when at some foreseeable future do you see the time coming that you can perhaps say that yes it is to our disadvantage not to be there? The data are all in the opposite direction, you are doing fine in job creation, flexibility and so forth, and everyone knows in this country that there is no point in joining a club of economies that have these difficulties, slow growth, slow improvement of their structural rigidities, and it is almost impossible to win the argument for the Euro in such a climate. When do you expect this will change, that you can prove it is to your detriment?
Prime Minister
I think again you have got to wait for the 9 June assessment. But for example if it is the case that we have greater flexibility in our own economy, sometimes that can be of advantage to us within a single currency zone. So there are all sorts of economic arguments that can be made, you have to wait for the 9 June assessment, but let me just return to the point I made a moment ago, it has got to be on the basis of the long term, not simply where people are at different stages of the economic cycle, but where you believe the long term interests of your economy lie, and that is the important decision that we will make on 9 June, and I think it is important to recognise that. Because otherwise you can get into a discussion about where the exchange rate is at this particular time or not, or whether the growth in this quarter or that quarter, you have got to take it in the round for the long term and that is the point the Chancellor has been making and I totally agree with it.
Question
You are leaving this afternoon for Germany and giving a speech in Berlin and meeting your friend, the Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. The economy is not so good in Germany and it has a high unemployment rate. Do you have any advice or suggestions for Gerhard Schroeder?
Prime Minister
I think I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to start making suggestions to him, but I think obviously the reform package that the Chancellor has put forward for Germany is a very important package, and I think there is a very clear acceptance right across Europe, but in particular in Germany, of the necessity of structural reform in order to make the single European market and the single currency work.
Question
You were asked about the inevitability of Euro membership, and your answers notwithstanding, polls show about three-quarters, 80% of people in this country think Euro membership is inevitable, why do you think they think that?
Prime Minister
I think people can see that there is an issue that the single currency is not going to go away and Britain is part of the European single market. But it depends for us, the decision depends on the economic tests being met.
Question
In this room a few months ago, in the context of Northern Ireland, you indicated that decommission was essential and also that there should be a complete cease-fire and end of terrorism. In the context of Israel and the territories and Palestinians, do not the same principles apply, do you not understand the Israeli government’s desire that they will not go down the negotiation road until there is a complete cessation of terrorism? And secondly, have you invited Abu Mazen here? If so, would you use the opportunity to express to him the logic that while Israel has maintained a not very favourable publicity for its closures, but at least it has stopped the suicide bombs.
Prime Minister
The answer to the first part, Jerry, is yes, I accept entirely there can be absolutely no compromise with the security of Israel. Israel and the Israeli people are entitled to be protected against acts of terrorism.
What I would then go on to say is that if we want to make progress however, we have got to sit down and negotiate what are the right steps in relation to security that then allow the lifting of restrictions that ensure that the Palestinian people are also given some chance in this situation. And that is why I think that what the road map does is it gives proper expression to the two state solution, to the idea that there is a destination of any negotiation that results in an independent Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. But I totally accept, and this is my plea in a sense to both parties in this dispute, we are not going to get there unless we have the measures in place on security that allow the confidence to be there that those two states can live properly side by side. So what I would say to you is I accept entirely that any government, and this is what I constantly say to people when people criticise Israel to me for taking measures to protect their security, I say any country, particularly in a democracy whose people are being blown up in terrorist acts, on the scale that is happening in Israel, any state is going to take action to protect its people. That is not in my view the sole issue however. The next issue is, but what is our strategy for getting us from this situation where the Palestinians are living in misery and where the Israelis are subject to terrorism, to a situation where people can live side by side. And that can only be done within a broad vision and then detailed negotiation, and it is this detailed negotiation, particularly on issues to do with security, that allow then other measures to be taken by the Israeli government, it is that that we need to push forward in my view.
Question
In the run-up to the Iraq war, whatever went on in private between you and George Bush you backed him all the way. Given what you have said about Iran a few moments ago, and given the fact that the White House, and especially Bush advisors seem very intent on regime change in some areas, or at least influencing them, to what extent are you willing to stay with the White House in that policy? In other words can you foresee any circumstances under which you would go to war if diplomacy failed against the so-called axis of evil and other such countries?
Prime Minister
I think we are running a bit ahead of ourselves on this.
Question
Would you rule it out?
Prime Minister
One of the things that you learn in my business is not to start engaging in hypothesis upon speculation, otherwise you end up in trouble. But I don’t think that is the issue at the moment. There are real concerns, there are concerns about North Korea, there are concerns about Iran, we are raising those concerns. But the issue is not for me whether we as it were stick with the White House or not, the issue for me has always been what is in my own country’s national interest, and the reason why I was absolutely solidly with America over Iraq is because I believe that to be in the interests not just of America but of Britain and the wider world. Now there are issues, as I was answering earlier, there are issues to do with Iran, but we are pursuing those issues in the way that we have indicated, and in relation to North Korea likewise, where the Americans I think have quite successfully now started to open up the dialogue and the nature of the dialogue that is taking place in order to deal with the issues that we have in respect of North Korea. But as I say I am not going to get drawn into speculating what we might or might not do further down the path, but I have always said, and I simply repeat, there are real issues to do with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction that we have to confront. How we confront them is another matter, and there are all sorts of different ways of confronting them, but we would be very foolish as a country and as a world if we simply shrugged our shoulders and left them alone.
Question
Whoever is responsible for the shortfall in this year’s school budgets, can you guarantee that next year headmasters and parents won’t be left with the uncertainties and difficulties of this year?
Prime Minister
Well we are continuing to look extremely closely at the claims by schools and by some education authorities that there is a shortfall of funding, because there is no doubt at all about the additional money that has been put in. And let me just make two points to you. The first is, there are genuine cost rises in school pensions, school pay, in other areas, special educational needs for example, that have put pressure on school budgets. But this is not a mystery, this is genuine cost pressures that if we weren’t meeting people would be very angry about those things too. But secondly I think it is just careful. The survey for example that was in some of the papers today was a survey that actually ended up being 6% of schools, so we just need to be careful about this. However, I accept there are real problems with certain schools, we are looking urgently on a case by case basis at what the true nature of that problem is and what we can do about it. There is one other thing I should say though. Every year there are changes which schools who may have falling rolls, who may for different reasons decide to change the way that they are handling the funding that they get, and so you might think from some of the coverage that for example no teacher is ever laid off in the course of any year. Every year this will happen, the question is net overall are we increasing the number of teachers and classroom assistants or diminishing them. Well over the past few years at any rate we have undoubtedly increased the number of teachers and the number of support staff and classroom assistants. Now as I say, I am not minimising the difficulties that some schools have, they obviously do, I have heard this up in my own area and other areas, so there are definite problems. We are looking at those and seeing (a) what the true scale of them are, (b) what the reasons for those problems are, and (c) what we can do about it, and I hope very much that we can clear this situation up. But I think it is just important to have some caution about some of the press descriptions of how great the extent of this problem is. I am not saying it doesn’t exist, it does exist, but we should be cautious until we have the full data as to exactly how great the problem is and what we do about it.
delicious
digg
facebook
