At his latest press conference the Prime Minister briefed journalists on a range of issues including measures to tackle anti-social behaviour, Northern Ireland and Europe.
Read an edited transcript of the press conference
Prime Minister
Good morning everyone. Welcome to this monthly news conference. Whatever the news at the end of this day, it is unlikely to be dominated by policy, but my point is that it should be.That’s what I want to address in my remarks to you.
Over the coming weeks the government will be taking further steps of reform towards an NHS that is centred around the needs of the individual patient, towards greater independent of Britain’s secondary schools from local or central control. We’ll be continuing with the largest ever capital investment programme in both the NHS and education, but also investment in the poorest communities of Britain, in tackling the most persistent long-term unemployment, and in transport.
In addition to that we will be facing up to the difficult choices on issues like university funding, pensions, asylum, and Britain’s role in the European Union. And we will be publishing near the end of the year the prospectus I promised at our Party Conference on the future challenges facing our country. People talk about disengagement from politics. In my judgement the reason for it is the mismatch between the politics people want, and the politics the political debate sometimes reflects.
And let me focus on the number one issue for many in our society, which is not crime alone, but what I would call disrespect, anti-social behaviour, that blights communities and makes the lives of the most vulnerable miserable. So let the political debate focus on how we best tackle it, and this is of acute relevance at the moment because two big bills are passing through Parliament, one on the Criminal Justice System and the other on Anti-Social Behaviour. And my view, long held, is that this issue can’t be dealt with either by appeals to nostalgia, a return to the old Britain of the 1950s. However much we may want it, it can only be done by realising that the world we live in has changed, the future will change it even more, and that community has therefore to be rebuilt around deep-rooted values, set in modern reality. And these values are based on respect - self-respect and respect for others. I think people want today a society of diversity, tolerance, enjoyment of the benefits of modern technology and lifestyle, but they also want one with order, with firm rules, and that cannot existalongside a criminal justice system from the 19th century, or the policing era of Dixon of Dock Green.
Now when we came to office, we said in our Manifesto that we would have a new approach to law and order - as you know, tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime - that we would insist on individual responsibility for crime, but also attack those causes of poverty of unemployment and social deprivation. Now it is absolutely no consolation to you if you are a victim of crime, but it is worth pointing out that according to the British Crime Survey, crime has fallen by 25%. But we need to do far more. We acknowledge this. The reason for the legislation. On violent crime and anti-social behaviour, and even in respect of the crime that has fallen, crimes like burglary and car crime, there is still a lot more to be done. So, on anti-social behaviour we are pressing ahead with a comprehensive strategy, that may seem if you like a small issue with the wealth to cut themselves off from the rest of society, but to hard-pressed families going about their lives, issues like vandalism and graffiti, harassment, low-level anti-social behaviour, are a daily menace. Tackling this has not been some policy dreamt up in Whitehall but a demand I get every time I talk to Labour Members of Parliament, or I visit communities in whatever part of the country I am.
The new laws coming into effect in January will give police and others the powers to tackle it. And then we also have the major Criminal Justice Bill, presently stuck in the Lords. Bothmeasures, I have to say, are being opposed in critical respects by the two Opposition Parties, and let’s be clear what will happen if we don’t get this Criminal Justice Bill through. The public will lose the benefits of tougher sentences for murder, increased sentences for dangerous sex and violent offences, a 5-year minimum sentence for firearm offences, thecrack-down on bail bandits, the extension of drug-testing and treatment provision, changes in the rules of evidence to give juries all the information they need about previous convictions, changes to the right to jury trial, for example to make sure that where in organised crime trials there are attempts to nobble the jury, then the right of jury trial is withdrawn from the defendants. Tougher sentences for violent offenders, and post-release supervision for every offender leaving prison. This is something incidentally that has been built up over a number of years, various reports that the government has commissioned, discussions with the police, not just heads of police but actually out there in the country with ordinary police officers, and I think if you talks with most of the senior police officers in this country today they will say that after these measures in the Anti-Social Behaviour and the Criminal Justice Bill they have the powers that they have wanted for a very long time to tackle crime in this country.
Now it’s not just about legislation, of course it isn’t, but the legislation is vitally important. However, sometimes people say well we’ve given up on the other part of the old mantra about tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. We haven’t. We are also putting more opportunities into the poorest communities in our society. The New Deal, more nursery places, the Sure Start Programme that is helping now around 400,000 of the most disadvantaged families and children in our country, better grass-roots sport for example. A big investment going out in that as well. You will see recently, according to the Rowntree Trust, not the government and these are not government statistics, the Rowntree Trust, that round about 1 million fewer children are being brought up in poverty today as a result of the government’s measures. We are investing in our poorest neighbourhoods. In Nottingham later today I will see the success of educational maintenance allowances.
These are allowances paid to some of the poorest kids to get them to stay on at school and for example there has been a rise I think in where those educational maintenance allowances are being used, something like a 7% rise in the staying on rate, so that’s many thousands of children given opportunities they otherwise wouldn’t have. But they also - these educational maintenance allowances - impose responsibilities. Allowances are docked if children fail to turn up for lessons. So those two aspects of our programme - tougher law and order measures, but going alongside that, measures to invest in combating poverty and social exclusion and deprivation - that is part of a future programme for the government and part of building what we call a future that is fair for all.
This whole process is then going to be given a huge impetus when we begin a genuine period of dialogue and engagement which will begin in earnest at the end of next month and that will be when we publish the prospectus as I say that I promised at Party Conference, and it will be an opportunity to debate not just within the Labour Party but also out there in the country the issues that concern people and what we are going to do to tackle them. So it’s a very busy policy agenda. It’s one we intend to get on with verve and vigour over the next few weeks.
Question and Answer Session
Prime Minister
Right, questions. I see our ranks are somewhat depleted in the middle over there, and I’m wondering why. Actually, I’m not wondering why!
Question
I was going to say Prime Minister since we have the rare opportunity to hold the press conference in more or less complete privacy …
Prime Minister
It’s that bad is it?
Question
….. could I ask you about a couple of policy related matters. First of all on crime, Britain’s prisons are already full to bursting. How many more prison places do you think you need, once those measures go through, and are you really happy with Britain being the country that incarcerates more of its citizens than almost any equivalent country.
And secondly if I could, just on another story running at the moment, it has been suggested that one answer to the rising political problem, some would say a crisis, caused by Council Tax rises, would be a local income tax instead. Is your mind open to that? Would that be one way through the problems that are so obvious at the moment in local taxation?
Prime Minister
We are obviously going to look at the whole issue of local taxation, to deal with that point first, but I’m not in favour of a local income tax. I think if you look at what that would mean for the average taxpayer, it is something like 6p on the standard rate of income tax, I don’t think people would want me to do that at all. And what we have got to look at is what is driving the rises in Council Tax, given the fact - and this is a matter of record - that the government is giving more money to Local Authorities.
On prisons, I think there are two things that we need to do. We will have to have more prison places, because you cannot have a situation in which people who are a danger and menace to society are out on the street again. One of the reasons why crime has fallen is that we have been prepared to put people in prison who need to be in prison. But the second thing is this that that is not all we are doing. For example in the 30 basic command unit police areas where crime is highest we are also now instituting a programme of drug-testing for those that are charged, and those that are charged will have to undergo a drugs test.
If they fail that drugs test they will be offered the possibility of drug treatment. But if they fail to take the offer of drug treatment, then there will be a presumption against bail. Now the fact is that we are also trying to prevent people going to prison if they are prepared to get help for their condition, if they are drug-abusers and they are prepared to get help for their condition. But we cannot have a situation where someone is on drugs, is a drug addict and is let back out on bail in circumstances where everyone knows they are going to commit crime to feed their habit. And this arises out of these drug treatment and testing orders, and I know there has been some media coverage saying that these haven’t been very successful. Actually they have been enormously successful. These are where - and again this has been piloted in certain parts of the country and there are now thousands of these that have been given out - these are orders that are made when someone is actually convicted, and the court would usually send them to prison. The court doesn’t send them to prison if they are prepared to get drug treatment. Now 2 years on, a third of those people have come off drugs. Some people say, well two thirds haven’t, so that’s a failure. Actually when you’re dealing with these types of people, it’s a huge success to manage to get one third of them off drugs altogether, and those who don’t go off drugs of course do go to prison, so we are also taking measures to try and reduce the need to send people to prison, but the one thing we cannot do is to have the amount of the prison population driven by the number of prison places, not the need of the public to be protected.
Question
I think that your presence here, Prime Minister, and indeed what’s going on elsewhere, shows that individual leadership is important. Now since your last news conference we have had Gordon Brown quite deliberately subverting one of your own slogans to offer the Labour Party a different direction in which it could be led, which he said would unify it. We’ve had your own conference rejecting your plans on Foundation Hospitals which you will be over-ride, probably only with the strength of your personality, your health problems at the weekend. So I want to ask you three questions, really.
Prime Minister
I’m just wondering where all this is leading!
Question
How much longer you intend to carry on, who you would like to succeed you as Leader of the Labour Party, and presumably Prime Minister, and finally if you would give us your own ante-post views on the Tory leadership, who you most fear.
Prime Minister
Right, well I’ll answer all those questions absolutely frankly for you. I think you’re chancing your arm a bit. I know I had a medical scare at the weekend, but my defences aren’t down that much. We will carry on with the programme of reform because it is right. I would also point out to you that the vast bulk of the Labour Party delegates actually supported the reform.
Gordon and I will carry on working in partnership together, as we always do. On whether I’m going on and on, and whether I’m not going on and on, I will refer you to all the answers I’ve given on previous occasions which I can’t remember off the top of my head, but I am sure you can look them up. I think I will just leave it that whatever I said before I say again. And as for the Conservative leadership, no I haven’t really got any comments on that. Sorry Adam. That’s a pretty miserable reply to what were some very interesting questions.
Question
In the spirit of honesty and openness on policy, can you say to people that in order to keep investing in public services that you may well have to increase the amount that you take from people in tax, and specifically that the government is looking at the possibilities of taxing people’s house sales more, and that has some benefits in itself. And could the Downing Street patient, on a separate matter, tell us how he is? And frankly we all had to talk endlessly about what it was like to go through that in the public eye. What was it like?
Prime Minister
Well, I’m glad you all did. But I don’t. I think my official spokesman said a lot on it. It’s for you to judge. Look at me and decide how the patient is. In respect of the first point however. Look we never do, never can start disclosing details of the Budget. The reason we had to knock down the stuff on Capital Gains Tax was because there was a great swell going around on the basis of a story that was simply wrong. However, the investment plans that we have produced are investment plans that are funded. We raised National Insurance in order to fund the extra investment in the National Health Service. I really defy anybody to look at the NHS today and say that it is not improved from 6 years ago. It plainly is, and every single independent report that is now done on the Health Service will say that. But we have got our plans budgeted for in the spending that the Chancellor has already set out.
Now if there are any further plans for the future they will be set out in the normal way. But there is no need to make any changes whatever on the basis of the plans that we have existing and that are set out. That is very, very clear, and I would just point out that on any basis our debt to GDP ratios are way below those we inherited.
Question
I asked if you had done a review of the housing market, so the government is actually looking at this possibility of taxing house sales more, and there may be good economic reasons for doing it.
Prime Minister
I know what you are trying to get me into, but I’m not getting into it, Nick, because actually the housing review is not looking at that. It is looking at how we make sure because it is necessary for the housing market, particularly down in the South of the country, that we are able to build the houses we need and at the same timing protecting the environment.
Question
I wanted to ask you about the dialogue that you are opening up with the Labour Party and with the country and there may be a certain scepticism about it. If you go out to the country and to your own Party members and find out for example that they are opposed to top-up fees are you really going to change your mind on it. And if you are not, then is it a genuine dialogue. And also in this very room we had the Chancellor saying that there is going to be a great road show on the positive virtues of Europe. Have you yourself been on any such road show.
Prime Minister
I haven’t but I have to say to you that actually there has been a huge amount of work that has been done by Treasury Ministers and the Foreign Office in explaining to people not just our policy on Europe, and our policy on the Single Currency also. But this is of a different order. I mentioned this in my Conference speech because I think this is a chance to get back into proper policy dialogue. And I will be absolutely open with you it is partly because for the last year, for very understandable reasons, myself and the government have been arguing about foreign affairs, about Iraq, about issues that are tremendously important, but if you go out into the country and ask them what they are really concerned about, it is crime, anti-social behaviour, the National Health Service, schools, the economy, living standards and so on. And those are the things that the government is concentrating upon. Now the purpose of this is not simply to go out and say to people, well whatever you think, we just do irrespective of its impact. The purpose of this is to go out to people for example on University finance and say here is the problem. This is the issue and here is how we think this can best be dealt with, and of course you can amend or adjust policy in the light of sensible things that are said to you, but the main purpose of it is to go out and say to people, look this is the reason why these difficult choices are coming up. For example on pensions, there are really difficult choices for the future. If we want to make sure that people can provide for themselves and that the State can help in that, at the same time realising the State is not going to be able to do everything for people, what is the right balance between private and public provision? On University finance, the reason why I’m very confident we will win this argument in the end is that once you get into policy people will understand why we are taking the difficult decision we are taking. And they will also I think understand the absurdity of the alternatives that are being offered. So I think for us, and for me as Prime Minister, we have got everything to gain from that proper policy dialogue. The more the debate is about policy, the stronger I think we will feel.
Question
On policy, and top-up fees again, the Education Secretary recently said that it was important to pay the entire burden of extra fees for the poorest third of students. Can you confirm that is the government’s intention? Secondly, what are you going to do about the inherent discrimination of the current scheme against women graduates who typically will earn less, work for fewer years, but be expected to clear the same debt burden, and finally are you grateful for the support of Conservatives like Michael Portillo who back you on this on the grounds that the current scheme is soundly Thatcherite in terms of making individual students more financially responsible and reducing the role of the State in higher education?
Prime Minister
Well, first of all we are looking - this is what Charles has said and it is true - we are looking at how we can provide help for the poorest students, and as you know at the moment some 60% of students get help with some or all of their fees. Now we are looking at how we help those at the poorest end who are going to need the help most, and who we want to see encouraged to go to University, so we are looking at that. As Charles has said we are not giving a firm commitment on that until we’ve worked it through, but we are looking at it, and it is perfectly consistent with what we have said before.
Secondly, on women graduates, the problem here is you can say that about any graduate that earns less than other graduates. You can’t differentiate, I think, by gender because there will be women graduates who earn more…
Question
…Not in general…
Prime Minister
…Well, I know, you can’t do it in general…
Question
…They have to raise children which is apparently a high priority for your government.
Prime Minister
Sure, and it is why we have increased maternity provision and all the rest of it. But you have got to do this. All the repayment will be geared to the ability of the individual to pay. That’s one of the advantages of this season. That you don’t pay anything until you are earning at least £15,000 a year, and then you pay according to how you can pay. And if you can’t pay then of course the debt is not repaid in any part of the time you are unable to pay. So all I am saying to you is that I don’t think you can differentiate on that basis, but the system itself already provides for the fact that people will earn different sums of money. Now as for what Michael Portillo said - this is why I think it is important about the policy debate - in the end there are certain future challenges this country has got to face. All countries are in the same position. Why do you think they have got strikes in France, strikes in Italy, problems getting reforms through in Germany. They’ve got a huge debate - part of the American Presidential debate - about Medicare and healthcare. All round the world people are trying to deal with the same problem, which is how do you provide greater security for people in a modern world, where they are living longer, where there opportunities are greater and yet where at the same time people don’t want the State telling them what to do, and aren’t prepared to fund endlessly by higher individual taxes the provision the State wants. Now we’ve got a choice. The choice for everybody is this, do we want more people to go to University. Some people say no. I think that is ridiculous. If you look at the single biggest driver of whether someone goes to University or not, it’s the A-Levels they get. 90% of children in our schools who get two good A-Levels go to University. So the driver of whether they go to University - it may have its origins in poverty and social deprivation - but actually the real driver is do they get decent A-Level results. Now as we improve school results, more of these children will want to go to University. And why not. And if you look round the world today it would be considered an incredible backward step to say we want to cut the numbers going to University, or put a ceiling on the numbers. So I would say yes, we want more people to go to University.
Now, the second thing is this. How do we fund that? It can’t be fair to take all the funding from the general taxpayer because all of the general taxpayers don’t go to University. Indeed, if we reach our ambitions, only 50% will, and also graduates earn far more. So there is going to have to be a balance between individual and State.
Now the third thing is what’s the fair way to do that? And we are saying parents should have to pay nothing up front at all, so even the parents at the moment who are paying the up-front fees won’t have to pay the fees up front. We’ll give it to students on the basis of an interest-free debt that they then pay off when they can. Now if you look round the world today at for example Australia or New Zealand or Canada or the United States of America, even countries like Chile. All of them are having to reform their systems and they are basically reforming them according to the principles I’m setting out.
And the final point is this, and it’s about excellence. Universities in this country are a huge strength. Britain’s Universities are some of the best in the world at the moment. But if you look at the top 30 Universities in the world today, they are now dominated by American Universities. Now we can’t ignore not, not if we are sensible as a country. We’ve got to ask ourselves, well why is that. And the answer is because if you are a top Professor at an American University, you are going to be earning 2 or 3 times what a top Professor earns at a British University. Now at some point in time, whether we like it or not, people are going to be moving out elsewhere unless we are able to pay and to fund our Universities properly. Now I think that is a big debate about the future of this country. Because the whole of University education is going to be so much more important in the future than it has been before because the other thing that is happening in Universities new businesses are spinning off from Universities today at a greater rate than ever before. You go to any University city, big University city in this country today, and you will see business and University in closer alliance than ever before. That is only going to intensify. So that’s why we are doing it. Not because we want to do horrible things to people. It’s because we actually want to do the right thing by the country, and if anyone tells you they are going to fund all this as the Liberal Democrats say, out of the top rate taxpayer it is absolute baloney. You are never going to get the money you need through just taxing the top people. You’d have to fund taxes all the way down the system. And I tell you people won’t do it, and governments won’t do. So what governments will do is what governments have done in this country frankly for 20 years which is to cut the amount of money going to the students. And in the end that is …. even for the middle-class people, what they want is a decent education for their children. I don’t my children just to go to University, I want them to go to a good University that is going to give them a good education. Anyway, enough of that.
Question
I want to ask you two questions. First, what do you expect of the Conference of Donors that is taking place in Madrid from today, and on the other hand about the crisis in Northern Ireland. Do you think the Unionists would be happy ? because I suppose you are very aware of every step of the conversations between the parties, so do you think the Unionists would be happy to just know in detail what the Commission, or would they only be happy with the Republicans saying that the war is over.
Prime Minister
Well, I think they need to know that from now on there is going to be a cessation of all paramilitary activity. That’s what they need to know, and it is entirely reasonable. They need also what they have said in the past couple of days is the thing that is holding it up, they want to know details of this decommissioning act, and I think it is understandable why they want that confidence, and I hope we can give it to them.
As for the Donors Conference and I would like to pay tribute to Spain for their steadfast support of the reconstruction effort in Iraq and for holding the Conference. But I hope the countries give generously, because whatever people think, whether they agreed with the conflict in Iraq or didn’t, the fact of the matter is Iraq can get back on its feet - or get on its feet actually - for the first time in decades and go forward and do well, and that will have a huge impact on the region, on the wider world and on stability. So I hope people give generously. We have made a generous pledge ourselves and I hope other countries follow it up.
Question
Prime Minister, it is now the practice in the US that the President undergoes an independent medical assessment the basis of which can be made public, so that the American public can have confidence that he is in good health. Given what happened on Sunday, would you give an undertaking to do the same, particularly for instance going into an Election?
Prime Minister
No. I think we have different practices in this country from the US and as you know I don’t follow them slavishly in all respects. Good try though!
Question
The Foreign Secretary mentioned that there were a couple of areas of concern about the developing European Defence and Security Policy, could you say what they are and if you can’t resolve them, what will you do.
Prime Minister
Well, we won’t agree to anything that’s not right, and the two areas of concern are that it must be absolutely clear that for NATO countries the basic territorial defence rests with NATO, and the defence guarantee rests with NATO, and secondly in any structured co-operation, which we support in principle, it has got to be agreed between all 25 of the countries, so it is important that it only goes and develops in a way that is fully consistent with NATO. And that is what we will argue for and I believe we will be successful, and what I think is really important in this argument is for people to realise that we have a relationship with America and we have a relationship with Europe, and it is important to keep both of them in strong working order, and that’s what we’ll do.
Question
….. that you didn’t agree with?
Prime Minister
Well, I don’t think we will need to since we are in the overwhelming majority, but we won’t agree obviously we have got such a lock on the process as does every other country but the fact is when we had a discussion in Europe last Thursday night, I would say virtually everyone was in agreement. No-one wants to see European Defence develop inconsistent with NATO, and all I would say to people about this is, look I started this at St Malo five and half years ago at the Anglo-French Summit. At that time, and you can go back and you can look at the cuttings, people told me this is the end of NATO, European Defence is going to wreck the transatlantic alliance, since when I have been through Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, and now Iraq without any impact at all of an adverse nature on Britain’s relations with America.
However we have also recently done the operation in Macedonia and again in the Congo through European Defence, and hugely necessary it has been,
so we should have both. We can have both provided they are consistent with each other, and they will be.
Question
Bertie Aherne says if the IRA were to lose its right of confidentiality it could well damage the process and stop further decommissioning. Is he right?
Prime Minister
Well, I don’t know that he has exactly said that. I think what he is saying is that obviously it is important that we try and go forward on an agreed basis, but I think he has also said I think very fairly and rightly, that it is understandable why people want to know more details. And I think it is, and that’s not to take anything away from what was undoubtedly a very substantial moment in Northern Ireland on Tuesday when for really the first time, and this is the significance of it which has been lost unfortunately, but it is worth restating, the real significance is this that the IRA have always said the conflict is only over effectively when there is a United Ireland. What they are saying is that the causes of conflict are actually to do with the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Now that is hugely important. That’s a big, big change. And I think we are - I can’t be exactly sure what is going to happen over the next couple of days, but I hope we can find a way through because it’s important for everyone in Northern Ireland.Talking of which …
Question
How do you explain to people, Prime Minister, how you and Bertie Aherne got yourself in a position where after months and months of negotiation, you end up waiting for General de Chastelain to say a form of words that he can’t say because he is prohibited from saying it because of the legislation that set up his commission in the first place, it does to most people seem faintly ludicrous, doesn’t it?
Prime Minister
Well you get yourself into that position for the reason that we’ve been in this position actually several times before in the Northern Ireland process which is that something unexpected happens at the last moment and we thought that we were able to get rather more information than we did, but you’ve just to work through it. I met last night at a reception here for people to do with sustainable development in local communities, but there were people here from Northern Ireland and not particularly attached to any main political party, and their overwhelming statement to me was, just keep going, get it sorted out.
And I think that’s what people want. You guys were fair enough to admit that the situation in Northern Ireland over this Summer and over the past few months has been more stable than people can remember for 30-40 years. So we have just got to keep working at it. It’s always difficult, but we’ll sort it.
Question
Does it come down to a formula, a set of words, that you can use to reassure Unionists if you can get past the confidentiality clause that General de Chastelain works under?
Prime Minister
I think what it comes down to, for the Unionists after all, in a sense, the false starts of the past few years when we have almost got to this point but not quite, what the Unionists really want to know is, is this Decommissioning Act something that really give us confidence that what is in the statement about an end to paramilitary activity, about a new dispensation, is that real? And that’s what they need to know. And I don’t know whether that’s a formula or not, but they need to know the details of it, and that’s what they are saying and we will try and find a way through to get there.
Question
Do you share the concerns that there has been no Inquest into Princess Diana’s death after all these years, in the light of the revelations of her butler Paul Burrell? Do you think that would lay to rest the conspiracy theories that are continuing?
Prime Minister
No, my spokesman said the other day there has been a very full investigation of this by the French authorities and the Coroner’s Inquest here should take its normal course. But no, as we have already made it clear, we support the present position.
Question
First I would like to ask you about this report that the Americans might be planning to reduce their forces in Iraq to about half in the middle of 2004. Do you have similar plans? And my second question is about the call by the Head of the Governing Council in Iraq to reinstate the Iraqi Army. What is your position towards this goal?
Prime Minister
Well, on the first point I don’t know about those specific reports, but let me make it clear once again because Britain has one third of the number of troops in the area than we had at the height of the conflict. Neither America nor Britain wants to stay in Iraq a moment longer than is necessary to help the Iraqi people. We want the Iraqi people to run Iraq, and increasingly they are. There are now Ministers representing Iraq at Foreign Meetings. There are Ministers that are taking charge of various of the portfolios, and there are Ministers and Iraqi people that are joining the police force, and of course Iraq needs its own army, staffed by Iraqis. Iraq is going to be a self-governing state, that we want to see as a state that is prosperous and stable, and the more that emerges about what happened under Saddam, and the more I think that people see the genuine efforts being made by Iraqi people now to put their country in a good position, the stronger the support we have. But we have no strategic interest in remaining in Iraq one moment longer than is necessary.
Question
Do you support the idea of bringing back the old Iraqi army?
Prime Minister
Well I don’t think anyone is suggesting that you bring back an Iraqi army that is loyal to Saddam or is run by Saddam supporters. But recruitment is already going for the new Iraqi army in the same way that we have got now I think 40,000 Iraqi police, we have got tens of thousands of people in the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps, and I would simply point out that many of the people, if not most the people actually of the people being killed by the terrorist acts in Iraq are Iraqi people and Iraqi citizens and I hope people throughout the Arab world, if I can this through your news station to people in the Arab world, whatever they thought about the conflict, it is in everyone’s interest now to help the Iraqi people rebuild their country and make it a stable, prosperous, democratic state, and there are fantastic opportunities for Iraq if that is so, and I don’t think you would find many takers for the view that people in Iraq would be better off with Saddam. On the contrary I think most people are delighted to see the back of Saddam, but what they want is their country rebuilt, they want the terrorism to stop, and they want the British and the Americans to leave as soon as the job is done, and that’s what we will do.
Question
Prime Minister, on the domestic front will you introduce legislation for a national identity card within the next 12 months, and can you tell us why you think we should have a national identity card.
Prime Minister
Well, as for any legislation you will have to wait for The Queen’s Speech, but I will tell you why in principle I am in favour. It is all part of the challenges of the future and this is again an issue it is worth taking out and discussing with people in the country. What we know today are two things. First of all that we have great waves of migration sweeping across the world. Every single country is affected by it, and it is very difficult to police any of those systems, to manage migration unless there is some proper form of identity. And in addition to that you have significant amounts of fraud perpetrated against various parts of our social security, our health care system and other parts of state welfare on the basis of identity. That’s the first issue.
The second issue is this that for most people in our country today they do carry some form of identity already. It is not something I think that is considered absolutely noxious to do, and I think these arguments have gone far beyond the old civil liberty arguments about it, and are really to do now with cost and efficacy. Can you get a cost-effective programme that is actually effective, that does what you think it is going to do. Now that is where the debate is centred and I have got an open mind on that. But in principle I think it is right and I would just point out to you I think in the US they are introducing biometric visas and so on, there’s a whole series of changes going on right round the world to deal with these issues, and we have got to deal with them too. If we don’t then we are not aligned with the modern world. And there may be issues to do with the effectiveness of it that have to be tackled. There obviously are. There are people who will tell you is there an identity card system that can work effectively. On the other hand there are others who say that with the new technology it is possible to find such a way. So that’s what we are engaged in looking at at the moment, but yet I support it in principle. We have got to make sure it is a viable thing in practice.
Question
… recent Human Rights Report encoded but nevertheless pungent language talks about Guantanamo and the continuing difficulties that you face in Guantanamo. The International Committee of the Red Cross has also unusually broken its silence to criticise it. Now retired American diplomats and Generals are criticising it. You said in February that this was an irregular situation and we would certainly want to try to bring it to an end as swiftly as possible. Don’t you think 8 months is enough, given your relationship with President Bush? And even if you get further concessions on the British detainees, would you be concerned if not all the detainees have good due process protections?
Prime Minister
Well, it’s a perfectly fair point, but I think we are going to bring this to closure one way or another within the next 2 weeks. And to be fair to President Bush there’s no hold up on his side at all. It is a question of - as I said in the House of Commons yesterday ? either you get a trial of these people which we can be satisfied meets the obligations and stipulations that we’ve got, or alternatively they will come back here. But the one thing I do say to people about this because we are in a sense not in a position, and neither would it be proper to give the other side of the case, but the people who are out in Guantanamo Bay are people who got there via a particular process to do with the Afghan conflict and I just ask people to be a little understanding of the fact that there are also issues to do with our national security that we have to be careful of, and my experience of these debates is that very swiftly a civil liberties issue turns into a national security issue. Now I’m not saying anything about the individual cases, but there are real issues that we have to get right in this for our own national security.
Question
…. You were talking about that might happen in the next few weeks just with respect to the British detainees or to all of them.
Prime Minister
Well I can only answer really for the British ones. So you will have to ask the Administration on the others.
Question
You know a lot about the Administration does sometimes.
Prime Minister
Well, that’s kind of you Jeff, but I’m not omniscient. Not in this case in any event.
Question
Do you agree with the Foreign Secretary that it is not crucially important that weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq.
Prime Minister
Well, what he was saying is this that what is important is the information that we had at the time and how we acted on it, and as I have always said to people, imagine you were in a situation where you receive the intelligence that I think people beyond doubt people now accept we did receive, with all the history of Saddam and weapons of mass destruction, and you simply did nothing about it. I think we would have had some pretty serious questions to answer in respect of that. But on the other hand I would also say look at the Iraq Survey Group and what they’ve already found, and the huge network of concealment that they have already uncovered, and I would just simply give them time to do their work. They are doing it in difficult circumstances, but they will get it done, and I just go back to the basic point, there are only two things that have happened in this situation either Saddam for some extraordinary reason, once he effectively made the UN Inspectors job impossible back in December 1998 then decided voluntarily to get rid of all these weapons and not tell anyone, or alternatively the programme of concealment is as good as it was back in the early 1990s and we have got to unlock that programme of concealment.
Question
I know for a fact that you were hoping for the Road Map to work but it appears to have come to a dead end. Is there any alternative, or is there just no way that we will ever see two states in Palestine?
Prime Minister
Well I think the Road Map isn’t dead at all. I think it is still there and it is still the only way through. The real problem is this. Until we can get a proper set of security circumstances in place that gives the Israelis confidence that 100% effort is being employed to combat terrorism, and the Palestinians some hope that if they employ that 100% effort then restrictions are going to be lifted and life is going to become easier. Until we get such a plan in place as a sort of bridge to the rest of the Road Map then it is very difficult to see how we can make progress but the Road Map and the essential business of two states side by side is still the only way through. And all I say to you is the remarkable thing about the Northern Ireland process because 6 years ago you would have said the Middle East Process was in better shape than Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland we’ve had an additional difficulty, because in Northern Ireland there isn’t an agreement about the end game because one side wants a United Ireland and the other side wants to remain part of the UK. Now we have had to manage a peace process without agreement as to what the final outcome should be. In the Middle East, as a result of all the changes that have happened in the past couple of years, and as a result frankly of President Bush being the first President to come out and say clearly he wanted two states there is agreement, at least ostensibly, on a two state solution. The Palestinians say they want it, the Israelis say they want it, the Arab world says it wants it, the whole of the international community says it wants it. That’s why it should be possible to find a way through.
But I think the basic problem at the moment is to do with security, and it is also to do with this wretched business that I don’t think people are yet really aware of the full potency of, and that is issue to do with terrorism. Because I don’t incidentally say that this is all on the Palestinian side. Don’t misunderstand me. There are real issues for both sides in that. But I do say that the wretched business of terrorism, every single place you look in the world where there’s the possibility of progress, terrorism is holding it back. And there can’t be any compromise with it in my view if you want to make progress. Now that doesn’t mean to say that the Palestinians are ever going to be in the position of stopping every single suicide bomber. They can’t do that, but it does mean that there can’t be any looseness of commitment to combating this terrorism. Because if you look at Palestinian, you look at what’s happening in Iraq today, you look at Kashmir, you look at Chechnya, any of these places, it would be possible to get political solutions if the terrorists didn’t make people hate each other.
Question
…. about immigration. In recent days we have seen tens of people die when trying to get to Italy and Spain by sea on boats. The Italian Presidency of the European Union is calling for a European policy for the programme, but we have the impression that northern countries are less sensible to the problem. What do you make of it?
Prime Minister
Well, I think we are very sensitive to the problem and I think there is a role for co-ordinated action. In fact I favour that very much indeed and I don’t think you can in the end take away the individual country’s right to have its own system but I agree entirely with the Italian Presidency. This is a major issue. This is why I say I think the most interesting thing about politics today is that the problems that we have to deal with are definitively different from those of 20-30 years ago, and politics hasn’t caught up with this yet, and this issue of mass migration across borders of which those people who tragically died trying to reach Italy and Spain, they are just one symptom of it but at any one time there are hundreds of millions of people now on the move across the world and we have got to have proper systems in place. It is why for example on asylum in my view the Geneva Convention is just completely out of date. It doesn’t meet the problems any more, and we have got to be tackling this in a co-ordinated way, yes at an international level and also national measures and I think we need both and we are, certainly as far as we are a northern country, we are very sensitive to the need for both.
Question
As I am sure you know, an increasing number of Scottish politicians are questioning the government continuing to give charitable status to private schools. How do you justify it and will you consider getting rid of it?
Prime Minister
No we have no intention of getting rid of it and I think it is what I call one of the great diversions in the educational debate. What we have got to do is to work out how we make even further improvements in our state education system, not engage in some battle with the private schools. I don’t think that would take us forward at all, and what we are actually showing as a government is that it is possible to get significant improvement in state schools. One of the things that I think was most wrong about some of the remarks made recently by one politician about state schools is that it is possible to get decent state schools. There are lots of people at them. And in fact, according to the most recent international report, if you look at the top 25% of UK students, they compare as well as the top 25% of students in any country in the world. Now that’s far more than those kids who just go to private school, so the point is to lift up the quality of state education. Look at these new city academies that are going up in the inner cities today, the specialist schools. They have got massive school improvements. Look at the Excellence in Cities Programme. London schools for example in the last year or two years have had somewhere in the region of 5%, 6%,7% increases in the number of kids getting good GCSEs. Now it comes from a low base in some cases, but we shouldn’t despair of the State system or end up thinking that really the answer to the State system is to wage war on the private system. That is not my politics at all.
Question
My question deals with the situation in North Korea. Six nations including the United States, Japan and North Korea are trying to find ways in which to resolve the North Korea nuclear issues. What do you think Britain and EU can do in order to assist in the process in bringing about stability in North Korea and the entire region?
Prime Minister
I congratulate Japan and the other countries on what they are doing, and in particular I know Prime Minister Koizumi has played an important role in this and I thank him for it, and what the European countries should be doing is supporting it. But North Korea as you know is a deeply repressive state, the people live in the most appalling misery there. I think anyone who has looked at the situation there can feel nothing but the most acute sympathy for its people, and I think it is a very, very dangerous thing for the world if they get a long range nuclear weapons capability and we have got to do everything we possibly can to make sure that they realise that is not acceptable, and we need a concerted international push to get the situation resolved, and we will support those efforts in any way that we can.
Question
On the EU military, the concern one hears in Washington is that your having agreed last month to the idea of separate organisational structures for a European military goes a good deal further than you went 5 years ago in St Malo and does indeed threaten to duplicate at best, and maybe compete with at worst, NATO. Have you explained to the Americans in the same way that you answered a previous questioner on this subject, and are they satisfied with that explanation? And specifically one point that seems to be a particular irritant in Washington will Britain ever support the creation of an independent headquarters as is being proposed by Belgium and Luxembourg and a few other countries in a Brussels suburb that would be quite apart from SHAPE and the NATO structure?
Prime Minister
Well, Warren, first of all we made it clear at the time our opposition to the proposal that was made by the 4 countries for the Tevuren headquarters. Secondly it is not an issue between me and the Administration and I think if you looked at the comments of the US NATO Ambassador a few days ago, he made it clear. The UK is the US’s closest ally, and we work closely on these issues and all the rest of it, and I am sure we will sort this out. But this is a debate that has been carrying on ever since St Malo. And our position has not changed. We don’t want duplication and we certainly don’t want competition with NATO. There won’t be any such, and even if Britain were to agree it, which we won’t, you look at those new countries coming into the European Union, they are not going to agree that. You ask the Italian Prime Minister, or the Spanish Prime Minister, they are not going to agree that either. Or the Dutch Prime Minister, or the Danish Prime Minister. This is an issue that - I entirely understand why it gets built up in the way that it does - that people have just got to look at the record. The record since St Malo has not been one of us either giving up on the transatlantic alliance or allowing EU defence to become a competitor to NATO. We have got no intention of doing that. We will never do that. But I want to say this other thing as well because it is the important reason why I carry on with European defence. I am not either giving up the ability of Europe to have a proper defence capability in circumstances where NATO i.e. America does not wish to be engaged because if we give up that opportunity, then we are depriving ourselves of the ability to conduct operations - for example peacekeeping operations in the Balkans - where America may not wish to be involved. Now we have got an example, the reason I support this so strongly. 10 or so years ago in Bosnia where it wasn’t clear that there was the real ability or desire of America at that time to be engaged we had the most terrible situation that arose there as the result of the inability of Europe to have a proper capability itself. So in the end this is an article of faith with me and people have got to make up their minds whether they agree with it, or they don’t agree with it.
But there are people who want to pull me apart from America. There are people who want me to pull me apart from the centre of Europe. I will not yield up either pillar of Britain’s foreign policy in the early 21st century. Because it makes sense for Britain. We should be strong in Europe, strong with America, and wholly contrary to what people say the stronger you are with America, the better your position in Europe and actually the stronger you are in Europe the better an ally you can be for the United States of America, and whatever comes in and out of various people who have got their own axes to grind on this, that is where I stay because it is the right thing I think for my country. But the slight problem I would say that any critic of mine has got on this front, is that it is quite difficult to argue after the past year that I am a slothful ally of the US. I am absolutely the strongest ally the United States could have but I know there will be certain situations for perfectly good reasons where the US doesn’t want to undertake military operations, and the EU in those circumstances has got to have the capability to do so. One other point incidentally, there is no operation under what we are prepared to agree where you will not have to give the individual consent of each country to participate in each individual operation. In other words the other canard that is raised in these circumstances is that somehow there is some European Army to which we are going to give British troops and British troops will be used without the consent of the British Government. That is wrong. It is only in circumstances where the British Government or any other government agrees to participate in each individual operation that we participate.
Question
Prime Minister, the passage of the latest UN Resolution on Iraq. Do you think it has ended the divisions in Europe and elsewhere and will lead to a better situation in Iraq and an improvement in the infrastructure and reconstruction, and secondly the breakthrough achieved by the EU with Iran recently, do you think this will end the crisis?
Prime Minister
On Iran I think the European Foreign Ministers did an excellent job. There’s now an agreement by Iran that they will comply fully with the Atomic Energy Authority, but the important thing is not to say that but to do it, and people will expect that undertaking to be fulfilled. In respect of the first part, yes I think the UN Resolution does give us a chance to move forward as a united international community in respect of Iraq, and remember once again the essential point which is that we are trying to reconstruct Iraq with the Iraqi people. The terrorists and the Saddam supporters are trying to stop it. Were it not for the terrorism going on in Iraq at the moment, Iraq’s movement forward would be absolutely enormous. Now, it has slowed down as a result of the terrorism, but we will still get there. But it is important always that people realise that. This is the Coalition Forces, plus the Iraqi people, versus Saddam and the terrorists. It is not the Coalition Forces versus the Iraqi people.
Question
Can I ask for your reaction to the revelation this week about racism in the Police Force and how do you believe that should be tackled?
Prime Minister
Anyone, including any police officer with the best interests of the Police Service will have been appalled and shocked at some of the scenes we have witnessed. I just want to make one point to people though. The vast bulk of police officers are thoroughly decent committed people who are not in any shape or form racist, but want to do their best for their local communities and both in Manchester and elsewhere the police have made enormous strides forward during the past few years and I think it is important when a shocking report - and it is shocking - comes forward like this that we keep that sense of perspective and balance. The vast bulk of police officers do a fine job for all parts of their local communities, and I don’t want them to feel as a result of what is obviously appalling behaviour by a small minority that they should be in any shape or form tainted with that. And I think if you listen to Chief Police Officers or ordinary police officers talk about that they will be as shocked as anyone else, but let’s not stigmatise the whole of the Police Force with it, because they are not. They are, as I say, on the whole absolutely fine upstanding people doing a great job in difficultcircumstances for people in this country.
Question
We’ve had two derailments in 48 hours on the London Underground and the Mayor is investigating whether there’s any link with the PPP maintenance contracts which came into effect introduced by the government earlier this year, but are you confident that the Tube is safe for Londoners to travel on?
Prime Minister
Yes, I am and I think to be fair to the Mayor he has said that too and I think if you go back and look at the list of incidents in previous years, I think it is quite hard to sustain the case that this is to do with the PPP.
Question
You talked about the Geneva Convention on Asylum being completely out of date. In your view is there enough of a concerted international push to modernise it, or are countries too distracted for domestic political reasons for keeping the issue at home, often in very bitter and divisive debate, and on a separate issue Australia and the US at the moment are currently trying to negotiate a free trade agreement, are Britain and Europe relaxed about that, or would they prefer the energies of these countries to be directed at a multilateral level?
Prime Minister
On the first, no I don’t think we are doing enough to get a proper system of modern asylum rules and it is the reason why we are introducing new legislation in this country. We have already significantly reduced the number of asylum applications, but we have got to do more. We have got to introduce new legislation. We will be announcing details of that in the not too distant future. In respect of the US-Australia free trade deal, now I don’t want to impinge upon that in any way, but I think it is important that we give renewed impetus to the WTO, to the international trade round, and I think it is fair to say that if we don’t, then of course people will look for their own bilateral or multilateral deals outside that framework. Now I think what is important is that we make sure that the World Trade Organisation that had a significant failure I am afraid in the past couple of months gets renewed impetus and energy behind it, because we have got to make that work, and that is in the end in the interests of everybody, but I don’t in any shape or form want to interrupt the deal between the US and Australia.
Question
Peter Mandelson turned 50 earlier in the week as you did in May and indeed Stephen Byers earlier this year, any advice on coping with life out of office at 50.
Prime Minister
No, because I’m not an expert on it.
Question
I just got back from the Middle East yesterday and first of all the people there asked me to give you a message of good will and wish you good health, so I am delivering it. Secondly, a colleague asked a question about the Road Map and this is a genuine question in the Middle East. They want to see more involvement of Britain, not through the European Union but unilaterally or at least with Anglo-American involvement on the lines of Northern Ireland to actually deal with the tragic situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Prime Minister
I’ve already made it clear that I’m prepared to help in any way that I can, but I think it is also important to realise that certainly the main part of this is being handled by the US and I think our role is to try and support those efforts in any way that we can, and also the efforts of the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. I just repeat my view which I have held throughout. You see I don’t think it is a question of the Road Map as such being finished because in the end you will come back to something like the Road Map, even if you get rid of the Road Map. There’s no other solution waiting out there other than a solution that means either the State of Israel ends which isn’t going to happen, or the Palestinians go away, which isn’t going to happen. So you will be left with a situation where Israelis and Palestinians have to find a way of living together, and the only way they are ever going to agree to live together is if they each have sovereign independent states, side by side. So my point is that in the end you will always come back to that issue. Now the weakness at the moment however is that you have got to get a basic security plan in place that has the confidence of Israelis and Palestinians and the international community and the support of all those people, because without that you will always be in the situation …Supposing you had a calm period for 6 months and the Israelis started lifting some restrictions, the Palestinians started moving forward, if you get another suicide bomber and a whole lot of innocent people die again, then there will be obviously measures taken by the Israelis and then more people die and then the whole thing begins again and then the people divide apart from each other. Now since we know that you cannot guarantee there is not going to be some suicide bomber that gets through, you have to have a security plan with sufficient credibility that if a suicide bomber does get through the Israelis can be satisfied that the Palestinians did everything they could to stop it, and the Palestinians can be satisfied that they are not going to lose everything that they may have gained up to that point, as the result of the activities of someone that they profoundly disagree with. So that’s the situation that we have got to do, and I am very happy to help in any way that I can, but I have to be blunt about it, it obviously requires people to want that help and in any event it has got to be done strongly in conjunction with the US as I think you implied.
Question
Prime Minister on the Middle East again. Today the Swiss Foreign Minister is meeting Jack Straw and they will be discussing the so-called Geneva initiative. Can you comment on this initiative and also give us some details of what is the British diplomatic role behind the scenes in this initiative.
Prime Minister
Well I think people support anything that gives us an opportunity of making sure that the right climate of confidence and understanding is brought about, and the Geneva Initiative is an important aspect of that. And I think there is a lot more that Europe - I don’t mean the European Union simply - that European countries can do particularly on the reconstruction side in respect of the Palestinian Authority. But I do come back to the basic point. It’s a statement of the obvious, but it’s true that until the security situation is easier, it is very, very difficult to see how progress can be made.
Question
I have questions about accommodation. One is what you made of the rather interesting accommodation where Gerhard Schroeder asked the French to represent him at the recent Summit. And the other is about your own accommodation, whether there are any plans to redistribute the living space between Nos. 10 and 11 now that Gordon Brown has his new baby, and your eldest has left the nest?
Prime Minister
That’s a very good way of asking the old question! I have to say no, no plans as far as I am aware to change the living accommodation. Secondly, I think it is entirely up to France and Germany to make those arrangements, but I think you would have something to say, Trevor, if we decided to have the French President represent Britain at the European Summit, but that’s a matter for Germany, and good luck to all.
Question
Going back to European defence, in your previous answer you mentioned the attitude of several countries, Italy, Spain, the new members of the European Union. Do you see the risk of Old Europe and New Europe a division of attitude towards America and NATO?
Prime Minister
No, because in the end I think we will resolve it in favour of what I would say is the sensible position which is to do nothing that imperils NATO and the transatlantic alliance, but to recognise there will be circumstances where Europe wants to act on its on. And that’s the obvious way through. I think it is supported by everybody. I actually believe it is supported by France and Germany. France may obviously come to this from different attitudes, but President Chirac and I have had a perfectly good working relationship on this issue over many, many years. We worked hard on it at St Malo, we have worked hard at it since then, and provided everybody knows what the rules of the business are, and the primary rule has got to be there must be nothing done that puts at risk NATO, because no-one will agree that. Everyone wants to make sure that the transatlantic alliance remains. It’s there. It’s a cornerstone of our defence. Nobody is going to give it up, but on the other hand why get ourselves in some desperate situation about the perfectly simple notion that where America doesn’t want to be engaged, Europe can act. I think there is an entirely simple way through this if we concentrate on that practical rather than some of these questions that are more to do with symbolism.
Question
The government announced yesterday that you will be conducting all postal voting for next year’s regional referenda on regional assemblies. Given the well documented problems with voting turn out generally, particularly in areas like the north-east but across the board, is this an idea which you would like to see adopted for all future elections, including General Elections, and on the specific issue of the regional referenda, do you believe that yesterday’s announcement will maximise the chances of a Yes vote?
Prime Minister
Well I hope they do. As for how General Elections are conducted, as you know there is whole series of discussions going on at the moment. I think that anything that maximises turn-out is a good idea, but obviously there is a whole set of traditions about how we run elections in this country, and I hope people come out and vote, because it is a democratic right, and it’s important people exercise it. On that happy note, thank you.
delicious
digg
facebook
