The Prime Minister has outlined the government’s law and order agenda in his monthly press conference.
Speaking from inside 10 Downing Street, Mr Blair said the government would accelerate criminal justice system reform to rebalance it in favour of the victims and the witnesses of crime.
Juries will be made aware of relevant previous convictions and charges in cases relating to child sex abuse, or theft, he said.
"This will end the situation where a defendant may have committed a string of similar offences, but they are not considered relevant or admissible in court, and I think juries often find that immensely frustrating."
Read the press conference in full:
Prime Minister:
I know there will be a number of things you will want to ask me about Iraq and asylum, gambling and so on. Before I take the questions, however, I would like to go through in a little bit of detail what we will be doing over the next few weeks on law and order, and also announce something in particular that we are doing on that subject today. And I think it is just worth saying at the outset that we have got a very strong forward policy agenda that we will be outlining over the next few weeks on the bread and butter domestic issues that concern hard working families in this country, and we will be laying that out before you, week in, week out, over the months ahead. So as well as these other issues which are naturally there, we are concentrating on that agenda.
Overall crime is down 30% since 1997, the chances of being a victim are the lowest for 23 years, police numbers are at record levels, they are up 12,500, supported by 4,000 Community Support Officers, we obviously want to increase that. That is no consolation however, whatever, if you are affected by crime, if you are a victim of crime, and I know there remain some very real challenges and people want us to do more. So we are accelerating the reform of the criminal justice system, with the aim of trying to rebalance it in favour of the victims and the witnesses of crime. From December a jury will routinely have the right to know of a previous conviction or charge against someone in court for the same crime. But on top of that, today’s announcement is that from December in cases relating to child sex abuse, or theft, the court will also have the powers to ensure juries are aware of any previous convictions in respect of similar offences. An order is being laid before parliament to implement the so-called bad character provision, set out in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, and there will be guidance to the courts on how to implement these two areas.
I accept this is controversial. There are people who believe this undermines the defendant’s rights, but for too long the scales of justice have been weighted in the defendant’s favour and against the victim. That is changing. This will end the situation where a defendant may have committed a string of similar offences, but they are not considered relevant or admissible in court, and I think juries often find that immensely frustrating.
This morning also I took part in the trial testing of the new biometric technology for identity cards. It is important we get this technology right and ensure it will be user-friendly for the public. That is of course the purpose of the trial. Overall progress is very encouraging and I am confident we can successfully develop a secure biometric ID card for the whole country, and I think ID cards have an important role to play in fighting serious crime and terrorism and tackling illegal immigration. We know that false identities are important to terrorists and criminals, and we know that because they keep on using them. The Director General of the Security Service has said that at least one third of terrorists use multiple identities routinely. Computers and technology are so advanced now that forgery of passports and identity documents is easier than it has ever been. We need to know people are who they say they are, not least to ensure public services are used for those who are eligible for them. A secure modern solution will give us much more protection than we have at the moment. David Blunkett, I should also tell you, will be publishing a detailed response to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on ID cards this Wednesday, when he will set out how we will take forward some of the issues raised by the consultation over the draft Bill. We will legislate as soon as parliamentary time is available, and I believe that security must be our legislative priority.
On Thursday we will be publishing a report which sets out what the police, local authorities and communities have achieved in tackling antisocial behaviour over the last year, and as I continue to say wherever I go in the country, I would say this is the single biggest issue that people raise with me. It is clear however that the new powers, especially where they are being used in an active way, are making a difference. They have been successful and welcomed by police and public alike. Charlie Falconer announced further steps yesterday to protect witnesses, and we will be setting out what more we can do to help the vast majority of law-abiding citizens deal effectively with the minority of louts who can blight their lives. We will continue to bear down relentlessly on this problem.
Next month the government will also be publishing a White Paper on policing. This will set out how we reinvigorate, really in a sense reinvent community policing for today’s world, and the task is to make sure that we have both the numbers of police, the visible presence we require on the streets, but also the powers the police need to make that presence count. Before the end of the year we will also publish our forward strategy on asylum and immigration.
Of course the focus on Iraq will intensify in the run-up to the elections in January in Iraq, and it is right that it should. This is an important moment for the people of Iraq, as the country moves towards democracy, just as it was for the people of Afghanistan. But it is also supremely important for our own security here in this country.
At the same time we will meet the other challenges that we have set out on the home front, and to those I have already mentioned on law and order can be added obviously alcohol-related disorder, gun and knife crime in certain parts of the country.
So over the next few days, and indeed few weeks, we will be setting out this forward agenda. At the same time obviously we will continue to make sure that we follow through the actions that we have taken in Iraq and elsewhere, and I believe it will be a strong forward agenda for opportunity for the country and also for security for us.
Question:
Prime Minister, you want a major expansion of casinos around the country. How does that relate to your core values?
Prime Minister:
First of all I think it is helpful just to set out what the Gambling Bill does and does not do. Essentially we have all sorts of different forms of gambling in this country, as you know, betting shops, races, a bet on the football, and it is very important that we modernise the regulation of gambling for today’s world. 90% of the Gambling Bill is actually about better regulation, better protection for children, removing slot machines from round about 6,000 premises where minors, children, might get access to it, and in return for that we are giving the power to local authorities to grant planning permission for these larger leisure complexes, including casinos, which will probably add round about 20 - 40 casinos to the 120 that there already are in this country. And those will be directed to areas of regeneration, where these big complexes will probably get round about 50% of their income from non-gambling sources. But the whole of the rest of the legislation is actually to do with tightening the regulation on gambling
Question:
Apart from the American gambling industry, who wants this?
Prime Minister:
Well go and talk to the people in Blackpool who urgently need the regeneration. For many of these places this is a chance to put this on a proper modern footing, it allows us to regulate for example internet gambling, which is presently unregulated, it allows us to remove the possibility of young people in something like 6,000 premises around the country where at present they have got access to slot machines, and it allows us to make sure, in these limited number of cases, and as we announced in June it would be about 20 - 40 places round the country, you can have this done in a proper way.
Question:
But that is a big expansion of casinos.
Prime Minister:
Well we have got 120 casinos in the country, it is 20 - 40, but done in a way that allows us to regulate it properly and allows us actually to get rid of some of the outdated restrictions in different parts of the country that prevent these big complexes going ahead, and actually allows us to regulate for the first time gambling in a proper way so that you have actually got a Gambling Commission that is able to take action and make sure that abuses of gambling are properly regulated. So as I say, look I totally understand why it is a concern for people, and I think it is right in saying that if you go back through the history of this when the regulations were put in for example at the end of the ’60s, the present regulations for the casinos, there were exactly the same fears expressed. But at the moment you have, whether we like it or not, you have gambling done in this country, but with a whole series of rules and restrictions that are completely out of date. So on the one hand we are actually tightening the regulation of gambling, particularly where it can affect children, but on the other hand we are not preventing local authorities, I am not saying they have got to, but we are not preventing them having big investment come into areas that need it where the gambling can take place in a proper regulated environment.
Question:
You promised the people the final say on the European Constitution. Why then are you giving up the veto on our border controls without them having that say?
Prime Minister:
Well again let’s get to the facts on this. There is no question of Britain giving up our veto on our border controls. In the Treaty of Amsterdam 7 years ago we secured the absolute right to opt-in to any of the asylum and immigration provisions that we wanted to in Europe. Unless we opt in, we are not affected by it. And what this actually gives us is the best of both worlds. We are not obliged to have any of the European rules here, but where we decide in a particular area, for example to halt the trafficking in people, for example to make sure that there are proper restrictions on some of the European borders that end up affecting our country, it allows us to opt-in and take part in these measures. So the idea that we are going to give up the border protection that we secured is simply not true, we secured it at Amsterdam, it was repeated in the Nice Treaty and it is there in the new treaty as well.
Question:
But you are giving up the power that you have now to veto new European laws on asylum and immigration. Yes, Britain may decide not to take part, you say, but the European Commission, the European Court of Justice, can develop a body of law on these areas and Britain is voluntarily saying we will give up the veto over what Europe decides to do on these areas.
Prime Minister:
I am sorry, that simply is not right, Nick, that is not what we are doing. We will retain the absolute right not to participate, never mind not vetoing it, not to participate. Where we have decided to participate, where we take a decision that we want to participate so it is a measure we actually want Europe to do, then we can get it done more easily. And the reason that that is important is that there are issues to do with European-wide immigration and asylum where we need proper controls in Europe. So this, as I say, gives us the best of both worlds, we cooperate where we want to, and we don’t where we don’t want to.
Question:
Just for the sake of understanding, maybe you could explain to people what is it you are giving up. Every other government has kept this, you are giving something up, are you telling us you are not giving the veto up?
Prime Minister:
No, we are not giving anything up. Look, there is a complete misunderstanding about this. Let me go back into the history of this. It was agreed some years ago that asylum and immigration measures should progressively move to qualified majority voting, and the discussion over this weekend is about more of those areas moving to qualified majority voting. You already have qualified majority voting for some of the measures, but Britain insisted, because we are an island nation, we insisted that we would retain complete control over our own borders, and would only participate in European-wide action where we chose to do so, in other words stronger than an opt-out, an opt-in, we have to opt-in. However, in the areas where we have decided to opt-in, for example returning failed asylum seekers to other parts of Europe, it is actually in our interests when that happens to make sure that small countries can’t block the measures we think are necessary for this country. Now all that is happening, as I understand it, is that the measures already agreed in earlier treaties are simply being rolled out, as was envisaged by those treaties over a number of years, and the issue for us is very simple, do we still retain the ability to decide our own border controls and the ability to decide absolutely, unequivocally, the sovereign right of this country, whether we take part in measures or not. And the answer to that is yes, we retain that absolutely, without any qualification at all. So the reason I say it gives us the best of both worlds is that what it means is that where we think something is actually in our interests, for example to make sure that people can’t fiddle their way in through European borders, where there are measures that actually protect us against illegal people-trafficking, to take an example, in those circumstances we are able to opt in. And where we opt in of course is because we want the measure, and therefore it is important for us to get the measure. However, if we decide for example, let’s say European border guards, or they are about to decide our rules on asylum, if we decide we are not going to participate, we don’t participate, and we are not going to participate on anything - let me make this clear to you - that takes away our right to decide our own asylum and immigration policies in the way we think is right for this country.
Interviewer:
Forgive me, but now you could veto them doing it for the rest of Europe?
Prime Minister:
No, no, sorry you are wrong. The point about the opt-in is that we can only do that if we are opted into it. Do you see what I mean? So in other words if we have taken the decision that we are not going to opt-in then we don’t have any rights over what the rest of Europe do. Do you see what I mean? I hope it is clear.
Interviewer:
The Black Watch are on the move north today to backfill, as the Defence Secretary calls it, for American troops who are trying to retake the rebel stronghold of Fallujah. The fact that you are sending those British troops there, does that mean that you and the British government fully endorse any action that the Americans take in Fallujah, even if that includes the bombing and large numbers of civilian casualties. And how long are British regiments going to be in that area? You have said that the Black Watch will be home by Christmas, that General Walker has said there will have to be other regiments after that, how long are they going to be there? Is John Major right when he says they are going to be there for years?
Prime Minister:
First of all let’s just underline the strategic importance of what is happening. The key issue is the Iraqi elections in January. This is a very, very big moment. If the Iraqi people are able to elect their own government, that is the whole case of these terrorists destroyed. They are trying to say this is an occupying force designed to suppress the people of Iraq. Actually what they really want to do, these people, is to stop the elections going ahead. Why? Because they know if elections go ahead that is the end of their propaganda. So it is of immense importance to this country, as well as the whole of the coalition, that it goes ahead. We are undertaking a limited operation for a limited period, and that is what we will do. And as for any operation there may be in Fallujah, that will not be done, except at the instigation of the Iraqi government, not a US-appointed government, as it is sometimes described, but a UN-appointed government, and they are the ones that will take the decision on whether the operations goes ahead or the nature of the operation. But the reason for ensuring that we have as much of Iraq as possible under proper control is the Iraqi election, and the reason these people are trying to stop us is that they don’t want the elections to go ahead, and that is why we have got to stand firm and see it through, and we have got to be very clear about it.
Interviewer:
How long are the troops going to be there, because General Walker has already said there will have to be others after the Black Watch.
Prime Minister:
No, he hasn’t said that. We have got a limited deployment for a limited period of time. All he does the whole time, which is very sensible, is to say we cannot prejudge what may happen in the future. But the deployment we have got for the Black Watch is for a limited period of time for a limited operation.
Question:
Can I take you back to your series of personal announcements at the end of the Labour conference, and in particular what some people might regard as a loose end on one of those, which is the financial arrangements surrounding your purchase of the house in Connaught Square. Now it would obviously not be reasonable to expect you to spell out every dot and comma, but for people who worry about these things, can you say are you millions of pounds in debt, is the debt guaranteed by an individual or is it a conventional arrangement? And what do you say to people who worry that in the back of your mind from now on may be the idea that you have to carry on being bankable in America, rather than simply making decisions for the good of the British people?
Prime Minister:
I think even for the Express that is pushing it somewhat. I have got nothing to say other than what has already been said on that.
Question:
On your announcement that juries are going to be told of previous convictions, isn’t this just going to make the number of people in prison rise massively, and are you going to expand the number of prison places to cope with it?
Prime Minister:
We already are expanding the number of prison places and if people want tough action on crime - and they do - you have got to be prepared to put people in prison who deserve to be in prison. But I know of so many cases where the police, and indeed members of the jury themselves, get so angry when only afterwards do they learn about the previous convictions of someone for exactly the same offence, or convictions for very similar offences. And this is all part of a major rebalancing of the criminal justice system in favour of the victim, whilst protecting the rights of the innocent, but we have also got to make sure that we convict the guilty. And it is just worth pointing this out,I totally understand why in respect of the issue of crime, if you are a victim of crime, it is no consolation to know that crime has fallen 30%. You did something on burglary today. Burglary, according to the British Crime Survey is down 40%, according to the recorded police statistics it is down over 20%, but that is no consolation if you are one of the people who is a victim of burglary. And what is important for people to understand is there are a whole series of measures - legislation, extra numbers of police, better working within the criminal justice system - that I think if you talk to many of the senior police officers and people in the Crown Prosecution Service, are actually beginning to make a difference. The system is working better, but there is a long way to go, I fully accept that. And this measure about previous convictions is just designed to make it clear we are not going to have people playing the system and getting away with criminal offences that cause real misery to ordinary citizens.
Question:
Prime Minister, why should anyone trust you, or David Blunkett, or the European Union, when it comes to opt-ins or opt-outs on border controls, when the track record of this government, and others, has been so poor. The Social Chapter is one example of an opt-out that was suddenly brought in by the back door. You stood firmly against the idea of a written constitution, now we have one; you stood firmly against the idea of the Charter of Human Rights being incorporated in it, it is now enshrined in that. And indeed if you do try to have opt-outs, won’t the European Court of Justice decide what the policy is for Europe, and not Britain.
Prime Minister:
First of all I should just point out, Trevor, that the Social Chapter was an opt-out of the last government that we had as an explicit manifesto commitment that we would end. So we didn’t do it by the back door, we actually did it.
Question:
… another opt-out.
Prime Minister:
I happen to think it is good that we have paid holidays for people in this country.
Question:
That is arguable. The question is the opt-out … as transient as that, there is no guarantee in other words.
Prime Minister:
But your analogy is the wrong one, since the Social Chapter opt-out, for as long as it existed, did actually allow us to opt-out. I happen to think it wasn’t a good idea, which is why we changed it. The opt-in we have had on asylum and immigration we have had for 7 years. Tell me what measure in the opt-in we have been forced to do?
Question:
What I am pointing out is that your record on this is very poor.
Prime Minister:
I should actually point out our record is very good, because we have been 7 years with this opt-in, and not once can you point to a single area where the opt-in has actually counted against us.
Question:
You opted out of a constitution, but we are in it.
Prime Minister:
Yes, but as I said to you before, what we have actually done with the constitution is make sure it protects all the red lines we have, we can still decide our tax, our foreign policy, our defence in the way that we want. Asylum and immigration is subject to our opt-in, which gives us the full protection that we need. But the point I would make to you is that there are areas, David Blunkett was talking about them this morning, for example by opting in to what is called Eurodak (phon), which is the redocumentation of people who come through Europe, we have actually managed to return round about 150 failed asylum seekers a month. Now we wouldn’t be able to do that unless we were part of that system. So sometimes it is a good idea to be part of the system, sometimes it isn’t. And the benefit of what we have got at the moment is it gives us the complete freedom, as David says, it gives us the best of both worlds, we can opt-in when we want to and we can stay opted out when we want to.
Question:
You can give us a guarantee, can you, that this will not be challenged in the European Court of Justice under the Human Rights Charter which you opposed?
Prime Minister:
First of all the Charter of Fundamental Rights does not enlarge the legal jurisdiction of Europe. Secondly, we have had a situation where for 7 years people could have challenged it if they wanted to challenge it, so it hasn’t been successful. The best example of what we managed to do lies in what we have actually done so far, and I don’t think we are ever going to agree on this European question, you and I, but I do think it is important that we at least have the debate on the basis of the facts.
Question:
You have been sounding quite tough on crime this morning, but aren’t a couple of your proposals at least likely to lead to more crime? There is the fear that the growth of casinos would lead to organised crime, 24 hour drinking, ACPO are worried that there will be an increase in drink-fuelled offences. And can you clear up for us what the tax position is going to be on the new casinos, are you going to relax the laws, make them more in line with what American tax regimes are?
Prime Minister:
Well first of all on the gambling, the answer to that is emphatically not. We will have regulation that actually allows us, one of the purposes of the regulation, and the Gambling Commission that is being set up to oversee it, for the first time, is to keep crime out of casinos and gambling, which we have managed to do in this country, and I have no doubt we will continue to do it very successfully. And the idea, frankly, that 20 or 40 of these what are major leisure complexes, where if you look at the one, I think it is worth just taking a proposal, if you look at the one for example up in Manchester that is being proposed there, it is a major complex, half or more of its earnings which don’t even come from gambling. And the idea that there is something wrong with this, when we do actually allow gambling in this country, I think is very far fetched, although I totally understand the concerns and it is important over the next few days we meet people’s concerns and show them that the vast bulk of this legislation is actually as I say about regulating gambling and not deregulating it. In respect of the tax treatment, I think the Treasury has already said, I mean the idea that we have been, and I think so have the people from the casinos said, it is just nonsense this idea that we have been negotiating with them over tax rates. Tax is a matter for the Treasury and will continue to be a matter for the Treasury. I do want to say a point on the licensing, because I think this is quite an important point really, because one of the odd things is that at one level we are being accused of introducing a nanny state, and at another level we are being accused of driving the country to gambling and drink and all the rest of it. I think it is terribly important that we get it right on this licensing business. There is no reason, in my judgment, why we cannot have licensing laws that give people in Britain the ability to have a drink in the way that they would in any other European city. There is no reason at all why we shouldn’t do that. And the notion that we should stop everybody in the country doing that, because there are some hooligans that get fired up with drink on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday night and go out and beat the police up. No, what we should be doing is dealing with those problems. And that is why this is again often misunderstood, there is a quid pro quo for the relaxation of licensing hours, and the quid pro quo is this, that on the other hand the police and local authorities, even in fact local citizens, are going to have the ability to shut down a pub or a club where there are continual problems. And so what we are doing is freeing the licensing laws for the law-abiding majority, but actually toughening the law for those people who abuse it. And one of the things that I want to deal with over the next few weeks is this alcohol-related disorder, because I think it is a real problem. Some aspects of the rise in recorded violent crime - and it is a rise in recorded violent crime - are to do with better reporting of offences, and that is important, particularly sexual offences. But some of it is connected with thuggery and violence of people who are drunk. Now in my view we need to take specific measures against those types of people and the premises that they are using, and we are going to look at this over the next few weeks and see what further measures are necessary. But I think it is very important that the ordinary law abiding citizen who maybe wants to have a drink after the cinema or the theatre has closed, shouldn’t be deprived of that ability because you have got some hooligan or thug who goes around beating people up after drinking. We need to deal with the hooligan or thug, and let the law-abiding citizen enjoy their pleasures.
Question:
On Friday you will be going to Rome to sign the constitution. Coming at this from the opposite viewpoint from my friend here, when are you going to start campaigning for a yes vote on it?
Prime Minister:
Well can you have a word with Trevor and see if you can sort it out between you, and we will come back with a good compromise. Look, we will continue to make the case for a set of rules. Europe is expanding to 25. Over the next few years we will in all likelihood, if they meet the criteria, be taking Turkey into the European Union, and other countries - Bulgaria, Romania. It is sensible we have a set of rules which allow the European Union to work more effectively, but the key thing for the public is to understand that tax, foreign policy, defence, and because of the opt-in we have, asylum and immigration continue to be decided in this country under our sovereign right. Now where we want to cooperate with the rest of Europe we are entitled to do it, and sometimes it is very sensible to cooperate with the rest of Europe, but we are not obliged to in those areas, and I make that case continually, and no doubt I will be making it again on Friday. But there are still a lot of stages that have to be gone through before we get to that referendum.
Question:
So you won’t campaign until after the election?
Prime Minister:
Well I am campaigning now when I am talking to you, I am explaining it to people, but it is not an immediate issue, for all of the reasons that I have explained.
Question:
You met Mr Annan last week and you have on your agenda discussed the Middle East and the Iraqi situation. Is that the beginning of a role for the UN to play in Iraq, and what is your agenda for the Middle East, especially Palestine?
Prime Minister:
I think what we were both talking about was the necessity of looking at the Middle East as a whole. Iraq is one issue, but Palestine is another, and the Secretary General and myself were both agreed it is extremely important we take forward these proposals, in respect of Iraqi elections, but also try to make sure that we get the peace process in Palestine up and running again. There was a lot of scepticism when I think back in April at the press conference at the White House I said that I thought that Prime Minister Sharon’s proposals to disengage from the Gaza and parts of the West Bank were actually an important opportunity. I think people are beginning to understand they are an important opportunity, and what is necessary is to make sure from the international community that we have the infrastructure there on the Palestinian side to be able to run the parts that will be disengaged from so that we can get back into a proper negotiated peace process in the Middle East. And when that disengagement happens, if it is voted through, and we know there is a lot of opposition to it in Israel, but if it is voted through, as I hope it is, it will allow us on the right terms to start building the security infrastructure of the Palestinians, their political, their economic structures that are necessary, so that they can show that the end proposition of a viable Palestinian state can actually come about.
Question:
Can I take you back to the Black Watch and what happens to Black Watch when they do come home, whenever that may be, and they along with the other 6 Scottish infantry regiments will be amalgamated into a single regiment. That decision is causing quite a lot of anger and unhappiness in Scotland, there is a petition with nearly 100,000 names on it, there have been very well attended demonstrations. Without looking at the decision which has obviously been made, you have endorsed it, do you understand that anger and can you explain to the people who disagree with that decision why you have made it and why you disagree with them?
Prime Minister:
Well the reorganisation of the regiments is actually coming from proposals made by the Army in particular, the Scottish Colonels to us, but no decisions have been taken on this finally, and that is what I was saying in the House of Commons the other day. But it has got to be done on the right basis for those regiments, but also for the configuration of the Armed Forces as a whole. I think people have got this the wrong way round. There are proposals that as I say the Scottish Colonels have made, the Army Chiefs of Staff are in the course of looking at those proposals, and when we have got a final decision we will announce the decision to people. At the moment we are somewhat hobbled because we can’t say to people this is going to happen or that is going to happen.
Question:
People would like to know, is it a realistic possibility that you will choose not to accept those proposals made by the Colonels?
Prime Minister:
I am in precisely the difficulty of saying …
Question:
Is it possible?
Prime Minister:
I know, but all things may be possible, but it is important not to end up trying to give …
Question:
Either the options are open or they aren’t?
Prime Minister:
Of course the options are open, but it is not I hope right then for people to say right OK that means the government is about to make a different decision. I am not saying that, I am simply saying that we have to assess their recommendations, or more accurately actually the Chiefs of Staff do. Look, it is not really a government decision in the traditional sense, it is a decision about how we best configure British Armed Forces for today’s world and we do that obviously on advice from those that are engaged in this process. Now we are well aware of the strong feeling on the Scottish regiments, believe me we are very well aware of it, and we will listen to that feeling, but we also have to take the right decisions for the whole of the Armed Forces. So I think it is best frankly at the moment if people don’t over-speculate as to what might come out of it, because we will have an opportunity to have a proper debate once the decision is made, or announced.
Question:
Given that Iran is Opec’s second largest oil exporter and that we and the Americans need that oil to drive our cars, how much pressure can we really put on the Iranians over their nuclear programme?
Prime Minister:
Well we can put proper pressure through the international body, which is the Atomic Energy Authority, and the Iranians have been given certain measures they have to comply with and they have got to comply with it, because the one thing we do not want is an Iran with a nuclear weapons capability, for sure.
Question:
Why are you scared of meeting Rose Gentle?
Prime Minister:
I am not, but I have made it clear how I think this should be dealt with, and I think it is best to deal with it in that way.
Question:
You are saying that the last thing you want is Iran with a nuclear weapons capability. Iran has rejected the latest joint proposal by Britain, France and Germany to end its uranium enrichment programme. The United States has wanted more robust action, it now looks as though dialogue is not going to bring about the kind of result you would like to see. If there is some future military action by a future US administration, would you be prepared in any circumstances to join in that, both in Iran and perhaps in Syria, classed by the United State as a sponsor of terrorism but now the subject of an association agreement with the EU.
Prime Minister:
I don’t know anyone who is talking about military action in Iran, or Syria. But what we are insisting on, quite rightly, is that there is a proper obligation on the Iranians to comply with international law and regulations laid down by the appropriate body - the Atomic Energy Authority. Now I don’t think dialogue has been exhausted on this at all, but we do need the Iranians to understand that the international community does not find it acceptable that they develop nuclear weapons.
Question:
With the Black Watch heading into greater danger, there has been a terrible massacre, another hostage whose fate is unknown, it has become almost commonplace that the situation in Iraq has been made worse by the lack of post-war planning. Do you think that President Bush gave adequate leadership there?
Prime Minister:
First of all it is important to realise that British troops have been in danger in the last 18 months. In August in Basra they were in a great deal of danger. I think you will find if you talk to the Black Watch soldiers, or indeed others in the military out there, they will I think educate people as to the dangers they are already facing. And I think we can be thankful we have such magnificent Armed Forces and people who will do their duty, and do it recognising its importance to the whole of Iraq. It is terribly important this, on the pre-war planning, to go back to all the issues that were being raised by people before the military invasion. There were issues to do with humanitarian disaster, that was the principal worry that people had, which has not materialised; there were issues to do with Kurdish secession; there were issues to do with Shias, fighting Sunnis, fighting Kurds. There was a whole series of issues. The thing that has happened in Iraq is that outside terrorists, together with some of the former regime elements, have decided to make this the battleground because they know that if we succeed in Iraq, having succeeded, or well on the way to success, in Afghanistan, their opportunity to recruit people and their ability to function is hugely diminished. Now we have the forces there necessary, and building up the Iraqi forces there to deal with it, but it is not a question of an absence of pre-war planning, it is a question of recognising those are the forces that we are fighting, and standing firm and seeing it through, and that is what we have got to do, and we have got to do it recognising that victory in Iraq over these people is not just the victory for the Iraqi people, it is also a victory for our own security. Because if we do manage to get elections going forward in Iraq in January, what are these people going to say then? They are not protesting against foreign troops in Iraq, if they wanted to take their protest on foreign troops they could take it to the electorate in January. What they are actually trying to do is to stop those elections going ahead. And why is that? Because they know that in any situation where the Iraqis are free to choose their government, they are not going to choose either former Saddam people or a gang of foreign terrorists to run their country, they actually want it run by the Iraqi people.
Question:
You said three times that it would be a victory for our own security. In what sense? These people, Zarqawi and others, would just simply go somewhere else and carry out attacks somewhere else.
Prime Minister:
What is the biggest blow that has been dealt these people in the last few months, not just extra measures of security, and this is my point the whole time. This can’t be defeated by security alone. One of the reasons why I constantly say to people Palestine is important is because actually getting progress in Palestine would make a difference to our security, that is why if we spend time trying to get the Middle East peace process sorted out, we are spending time for Britain, not just for people out in the Middle East. And the biggest blow that has been dealt these terrorists in the last few months is the Afghan elections. What are they supposed to say? That was a country used as a training ground for terrorists, and now it will have a democratically elected President, and later a democratically elected parliament. That is a huge blow to them, the same with Iraq. So every time you deal these people a blow by showing how we stand up for the values of freedom and democracy and they don’t, then we deal a blow to their recruitment, we deal a blow to their propaganda. And I have always said to you, this cannot be defeated by weapons alone, it has to be defeated by showing that what we are actually trying to do is to bring greater stability, freedom, prosperity and democracy to these countries, not some imaginary war against Muslims or whatever since the people who are benefiting are obviously Muslims themselves.
Question:
Last week we had published the expenses of MPs. There have been quite a lot of questions about members of the Cabinet, including yourself, claiming for second homes in constituencies. Are you happy with what has been reported, do you feel these expenses are fair and justifiable to the electorate, or are there any changes you would like to see?
Prime Minister:
I think it is fair and right that we have published them so that people can see it, and I don’t think anyone was under any illusions that it wasn’t going to be the most popular moment for Members of Parliament, but on the other hand the information is actually published and people can make up their own minds.
Question:
Are you happy with your own financial circumstances?
Prime Minister:
Yes, and I do point out it is a constituency office. I think that people actually understood that once the facts came out. But look, he isn’t going to win this argument, no.
Question:
… surely if it was your constituency office, surely it should have gone down under office accommodation then shouldn’t it?
Prime Minister:
Look, I don’t actually deal with the minutiae of this myself, but as far as I am aware it is entirely in compliance with the Fees Office, since they check it all.
Question:
Can I ask a broader point about where this government’s moral compass is if you like. On the one hand you are intervening more in people’s private lives, you are telling them more about what they should eat, you are probably going to make it more difficult for them to smoke, you are going to ban hunting; on the other hand you are liberalising things, you are making it easier for them to do things which other people regard as harmful, like drinking longer and gambling, because whatever else you think about the legislation, all the research indicates it will lead to an increase in gambling, and in particular in problem gambling. So what is the common moral theme that runs through all this?
Prime Minister:
The common moral theme is doing the sensible thing. First of all you are not right actually about all the independent research showing it will lead to an increase in gambling, it doesn’t actually show that at all. If you look at Gamcare for example, which is the charity dealing with this, it doesn’t show that.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
I honestly don’t see how, when you have got 120 casinos and you are going to add 20 - 30 of casinos in these major, as I say leisure complexes, it is going to add to it in the way that you describe.
Question:
… I am offering you an explanation ….
Prime Minister:
But you have 24 hour a day gambling now. Look, let’s be quite clear, people gamble in all sorts of different ways in this country and we may like it, we may not like it, but lots of people do, they gamble in betting shops, they gamble on the internet, they gamble in racing, and football, and dogs and all sorts of different things. The notion that you take out one aspect of this, which is casinos, casinos overall are a relatively small proportion of the gambling that is done in this country.
Question:
… on cash machines, they are not going to be so small then, are they? The whole point is you are raising those controls.
Prime Minister:
No, excuse me, what is actually happening is this. You already have the ability, people can go and bet whatever they want down at the betting shop. You could put your entire savings on the 3.30 at Kempton Town if you wanted to. So there is I am afraid quite a lot of misapprehension about what is actually happening here. In casinos it is true at the moment you have to have pre-membership, but there are people that gamble, often in the centre of London, so I am told at any rate, there are literally millions of pounds that are gambled by people. All this is saying is that in these areas, these certain designated areas, the local authority, if they want to, are allowed to have proper leisure complexes which have a casino in them but also have a lot of other things, and there is no evidence from round the world that it causes the problems that people are talking about. I totally understand what the concern is, but I think it is important that we just get it in context. Now as for the rest of what you are saying, look again we are not encouraging people to drink more, people can go down to the off-licence and buy a bottle of whisky and go and drink it at 7.00 in the morning. Now I don’t advocate that, just in case for any of you guys here, I don’t advocate that, I am saying that it can be done. But in the rest of Europe you can have a drink after a certain time, without it causing all these problems. And we are not encouraging people to drink more, we are simply saying look in the modern world we can do these things in a better and different way, and if there are problems for example with binge drinking and people behaving loutishly when drunk, deal with the problem, don’t deal with the ordinary law-abiding citizen. Now as for the other things that you sort of listed into all that, let me not deal with all of them, just to take the smoking issue as one, that is different for this reason, that first of all we want measures that protect young people being encouraged to smoke, that is surely sensible and there is a good public interest reason for doing that, and we also want to make sure that where someone’s indulgence may affect somebody else, as it can do when people are smoking in a bar, or a café, or a pub, then you have got to take account of their rights as well, so it is more complicated than saying we are trying to interfere in their lives. We are not, because what some people would say is that if someone is smoking near them they are interfering in their life. So there it is.
Question:
Unless you have got a tip for the 3.30 at Kempton Park …
Prime Minister:
I haven’t actually, it has never been part of my …
Question:
Your predecessor, John Major, popped up at the weekend and said that you had committed grand larceny in diverting lottery funds to causes for which they weren’t meant and should be paid for out of general taxation; and secondly he said you had made a hash of both the pre-war organisation, the post-war planning in Iraq and that you had lost trust and wouldn’t get it back again. Well he may not be right about the first one, you can tell me, but he is certainly right about the second, isn’t he? A minor troop deployment last week caused you enormous trouble and everybody imputed every unimaginable motive to you for why you were doing it. The monkey won’t get off your back.
Prime Minister:
I don’t know whether you are referring to John Major on that.
Question:
I am talking about …, and Mr Major, who doesn’t speak much, took it upon himself to say it yesterday.
Prime Minister:
What I think is important is to remember why we are taking the action that we are taking, and of course, let’s be clear about this, there was a very strong lobby against the war right from the very outset, there were a lot of people who disagreed with it passionately when it was happening, but you have got to take decisions that you believe to be right and see them through. And I remember when we didn’t intervene in Bosnia back in the early 1990s and tens of thousands of innocent people died as a result, and I think probably it would have been better had we intervened. If I can just say about the lottery, he is actually completely wrong. We made it clear that we were going to consult on good causes for the lottery before we were elected in 1997. What we said however was that it shouldn’t be to replace government spending, and we have stuck to that. But if you look at what the lottery funding is providing for example for children’s hospices, I really don’t understand his criticism, I think it is a thoroughly good thing that we use lottery funding - lottery being a gamble, I may say - for those causes that are good. And he was saying that that was in breach of a promise before the election, it most certainly was not.
Question:
From your previous answer, I am not quite clear. Do you think gambling is a morally good thing or a morally bad thing?
Prime Minister:
Look, gambling goes on, people gamble. I am not a gambler myself actually, but people do gamble - well politically possibly, but then you have got to do that, you have got to take a few risks in this job, people may think I go overboard in doing that from time to time, but there it is. There is no point in taking a position that says all gambling is wrong, that would just be daft for us all. Let’s have an honest debate about this, people gamble. The purpose of this Bill, 90% of it is actually about regulating gambling, and the 10% that allows 20 - 40 extra casinos, on top of the 120 we have, will actually allow those casinos to operate in a proper regulated environment and in a way that overall ensures in particular that we protect children from the dangers of gambling. And I confidently predict to you this, that when and if these measures go through, within a few years people will simply ask what all the fuss was about.
Question:
… If you cast your mind back over the last year or so, can you think of anything you have said to any of your colleagues which might have given them the impression, rightly or wrongly, that your departure this year was a racing certainty?
Prime Minister:
No I can’t, and insofar as I think I know what you are getting at, I refer you to all the previous answers I have ever given on this subject.
Question:
You mentioned again this morning there will be 20 - 40 new casinos, would it not help quell fears of a gambling explosion if you wrote a limit into the Bill? Is that ruled out, or why are you not doing that?
Prime Minister:
I think the limit comes about because of the rules that there are, and remember this is a permission for local authorities. We are not saying you have got to have a casino in your area, we are simply permitting a local authority to allow us, under certain very strict conditions, and incidentally this was made clear back in June of this year, back in June of this year we knocked down this notion there was another 120, or 250 or whatever other numbers.
Question:
You said last week, and I quote: not all of the 130,000 American troops are troops fit for this particular purpose, referring to the redeployment of the British forces near Baghdad. So what are these troops fit for - peacekeeping missions for instance?
Prime Minister:
Any force, the British force is 9,000 but not all of those are combat troops. You have got to have logistics, you have got to have supply, you have got a whole range of things that people do, and equipment and so on. So sometimes these numbers look very large and people think these are pure combat troops, but they are not.
Question:
Are the coalition forces losing their grip on Iraq, especially after the increase of attacks carried out by the insurgents either against police, against coalition forces. We have seen lately that these groups, the insurgents, are on the offensive and they are attacking daily the green zone, so how long is it going to take?
Prime Minister:
Yes, but let’s be clear about what is happening here. What is happening is the Iraqi government and the multinational forces are bit by bit taking back control of these towns - Najaf, Sumara, Talapa - so they are actually taking back control over these towns. And what the people who are bombing and killing ordinary people are doing is trying to prevent the elections taking place, and the people they are killing are often innocent, in fact nearly always innocent unarmed people, like the police that they killed. These are people who are trying to make Iraq a better place and are being killed for that reason. So I think we should be very clear of where the rights and wrongs of it are.
Question:
So is there a timescale for when the coalition, the government would be in charge?
Prime Minister:
Look, let’s be absolutely clear about this. If the terrorists and the people killing innocent people in Iraq stopped, there would be no need for American, British and other countries’ troops to help the Iraqi government. The only reason we remain is because until the Iraqi government has its own capability, especially with the elections coming up in January, they need our support. But this is why it is such complete hypocrisy of these people to say that what they are doing is protesting against the occupation, so-called. They are not protesting against that, what they are trying to do is stop the elections because they know perfectly well that if the terrorism stopped and the security situation improved, the American and British would be out, we would be gone. We don’t want to stay there a moment longer than is necessary, but we are not going to let down Iraqi people who know that until their own security forces are sufficiently strong, they are obliged to have our help to prevent these people taking over the country and stopping democratic elections.
Question:
Margaret Hassan from Care International - does the government have any news on that, or how engaged is your government on that? And do you personally have a view about how media networks around the world use those videos that we are seeing now of hostages like Margaret Hassan, do you have a view on what we should do with them?
Prime Minister:
I think it is better on that subject if I just don’t saying anything for the moment. I have said what I have said already, I am sorry about that and I don’t mean to be difficult about it, but I think that is the best thing.
Question:
What grounds are there for the optimistic assessment we have had from the Northern Ireland Secretary, Paul Murphy, in the last week that the current difficulties in the Northern Ireland peace process can be resolved in weeks rather than months. Is there a timetable for an imminent transfer of policing and justice powers, because even if that and the decommissioning issue is resolved successfully, surely that still leaves the whole issue of power-sharing outstanding?
Prime Minister:
The grounds for optimism are that we believe that the issues separating people are very well defined now, and it is clear that all sides actually want an agreement. The necessary cautionary word is that that has been so for some time and we haven’t actually got the agreement. But I think everyone recognises, I will be, and have been engaged in the past couple of weeks on a lot of work on this, and will be engaged in the next few weeks. But I think the next few weeks are crucial frankly. One way or another we will decide whether people have got the final political will to get the job done, and we can only assist in that, we can’t make them do it.
Question:
Forgive me for saying this, but we have heard that - the next few weeks are crucial - a number of times before, what makes this any different?
Prime Minister:
I forgive you for saying it, because you are entirely right. What makes us more optimistic? Well I think that there was a different atmosphere in the Leeds Castle talks and they involved the DUP, so that is the grounds for greater optimism, but whether that optimism is misplaced or justified, I think the next few weeks will tell, and I am not trying to oversell it to you.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
Well that is part of the discussion, so it is probably again better not to say too much at the moment.
Question:
Talking about political gambling, is it true that you have never met the Presidential candidate, John Kerry, in your life, and do you regret that? And if he is elected, what will you tell him when you first meet him?
Prime Minister:
It is not correct actually that I haven’t met him, but I think it is best that I stay out of that, particularly at the moment.
Question:
I have two questions one on Gaza, because it seems to me that this withdrawal, if indeed it happens in the summer of 2005, whilst so many people are dying and they are destroying their homes etc, is this the kind of justice you are looking for, because we all know that Gaza will be still controlled by the Israelis, and also the Prime Minister intends to keep many of the settlements in the West Bank in return for that. Second, how can you be so confident about the elections in Iraq while we know that these insurgents might bomb people while voting, and indeed many people think that this is going to be cosmetic elections if indeed it goes on, as many sections of the society will boycott it.
Prime Minister:
Well first of all the Iraqi elections are going to be under the supervision of the UN, they are not cosmetic, they are very real. And people said exactly the same about Afghanistan, where they were also trying to kill people.
Question:
But it is a different situation, the insurgency is much stronger in Iraq and there is real danger for the lives of these people going to vote.
Prime Minister:
Well that sets it pretty clearly doesn’t it? We want the Iraqi people to have the vote, the Iraqi people want to have the vote, there is no doubt about that, and those people who are killing and maiming innocent people, they want to stop them, right. But we have got to make sure they don’t succeed, and that is what we are trying to do.
Question:
But so far they are winning.
Prime Minister:
Well I don’t think they are winning. I think the fact that they are now trying to kill innocent unarmed people is an indication actually of their desperation. They know they can’t win this militarily in the end, what they hope to do is simply intimidate and bully, terrify people out of exercising their democratic rights. Well there is one thing for democrats to do in those circumstances, and that is to stand up for democracy, and that is what we will do. As for the Gaza, I think it offers greater opportunities than that. Look, there is a reason why there are protests against Prime Minister Sharon’s policy in Israel.
Question:
…fundamentalists, these are the very right wing.
Prime Minister:
Yes, but part of the disengagement process is to get rid of 7,000 settlers in the Gaza. That will be the first time that has happened, that is the reason for the protests in Israel. So that is quite a big thing to happen, and all I am saying to people is whatever your feelings about the Israeli government, or whatever your feelings about the situation out there, if that is a reality and it is going to happen, let us make sure that we are in there supporting the Palestinian Authority to make the most of it. We can’t be in a worse position than we are now, and therefore we have got to make do with what we can now in order to get that as then the first step towards a proper negotiated settlement. And as I have said before, I think after the Presidential election in the United States in November is out of the way, it is very important we come back to this issue and make it a big priority, and I will do that here and I am sure others will do it elsewhere.
delicious
digg
facebook
