Downing Street Says » Prime Minister’s Press Conference

[This is the transcript of one of the Prime Minister’s occasional press conferences; these
are the words of the Prime Minister giving a statement and answering the
questions of journalists. Unlike the PMOS’s briefings, this is a more-or-less
verbatim transcript of the Prime Minister’s words. Such press conferences
happen about once a month, and occasionally more often.]

I will start today by giving you the details of the government’s Identity Cards Bill. I know this is a controversial issue, so I want to say a little bit about why I believe ID cards are necessary in today’s world. We know false identities are important to terrorists and criminals because of the frequency with which they use them. ID cards will allow people to prove who they are quickly, simply and securely. Of course they are not a silver bullet that will defeat terrorism and organised crime on their own, no-one suggests that, but they will be an important weapon in the fight against the modern threats we face from terrorism and organised crime. It is important at a time of increasing problems that we do what we can to help the police, the intelligence services and the new Serious Organised Crime Agency. And it is worth just remembering that of the 6.4 million people recorded on the police computer, over a quarter have an alias, a false name or identity.

However, that is not the only reason for identity cards. They will also help in the fight against illegal working and immigration. The Immigration Service have seized over 4,000 suspected false documents this year. ID cards will help to bear down on fraud, and better ensure also that our public services are not exploited by those who are not entitled to use them. We know that this also is a problem, and very difficult to police. Identity-related benefit fraud is estimated at millions of pounds a year, eligibility for non-emergency NHS treatment is based on someone being ordinarily resident in this country. An ID card will allow the correct decision to be made and will allow the present law to be enforced in a way that all too frequently at the moment it can’t be. A common standard which proves on the spot who a citizen is and to what they are entitled will also mean a significant saving in terms of the checks on individuals and their identity that currently take place. The government of course takes seriously the privacy and freedom of people, the ID cards register will only hold the basic information which is already held by different departments and public bodies. The biometric identifiers will ensure the privacy of that information is protected and correctly tied to an individual. Security of that database is also vital, and we are determined to get it right, which is why we have always said that ID cards will be introduced on a gradual basis, starting from 2008.

I am also announcing today that there will be two new offences in the Bill to underline our determination to keep it secure: a maximum of 10 years for anyone tampering with the database, and a maximum of 2 years for anyone involved in its administration that discloses information improperly.

I believe that this is responsible government, not as some have called it Big Brother government. It is responsible to do what we can to enhance security and ensure that public services are only used by those that are actually entitled to use them. The public quite rightly want their public services to be properly used and not abused. ID cards will also make our borders more secure, they will make our free public services and our benefits system more secure, they will help protect civil liberties, not erode them, because people will be able to produce quickly their own identification, and I would simply point out, as I did at the weekend, that without proper security then there can be no opportunity.

Finally I would just like to say a word about the Olympics bid, where there is also stuff happening today. The government is hosting a reception tonight to honour our Athens Olympians and Para-Olympians. We have a first class bid and support for it is growing. Ten captains from the country’s national football, rugby and cricket teams have signed a public message of support. The government is fully behind the bid, and our athletes. We are announcing today further funding for the Talented Athletes Scholarship Scheme until the year 2007-8 to help the next generation of Olympic medal winners.

Well people are all interested in why if identity cards are so important in the fight against terrorism we are waiting so long for them to come in. But if I could just on one other subject, when you get a difficult story which involves private life and public life, what principles do you bring to bear in deciding on people’s behaviour, and what do you think David Blunkett has to establish to secure himself in his job?

The principle I apply is to do with the performance of a politician’s public duty. Politicians are entitled to private lives, the same as anyone else, and David Blunkett insisted himself that there should be this independent investigation into the allegation that is made. I should say to you I have absolutely every confidence in him. He has been, is, will continue to be a first class Home Secretary. Last week he was tackling issues to do with antisocial behaviour, drug addiction and crime; today he is publishing proposals on identity cards. He is doing his job and he will continue to do his job with my full support.

Regardless of whether the Home Secretary is proved not to have broken the rules, do you believe his behaviour was either wise or appropriate? And how is his behaviour different from what you in opposition used to call sleaze?

I have actually always said that politicians are entitled to their private lives, and as I said to you a moment or two ago, the issue in my view is to do with the performance of his public duty, and for the reasons again I just described a moment or two ago, I think he has done this extremely well. And in addition to all the other things, I could go on and give you a long list of the things that he has done over the past few years which have been to the benefit of this country.

I have commented on that. I think we will take one Question at a time this time.

We do have to look back to what you said when you took power in 1997. You said to the Parliamentary Labour Party, remember you are not here to enjoy the trappings of power, but to do a job and to uphold the highest standards in public life. You also spoke about a government being purer than pure, and you were talking about this immediately after the sleaze issue. Frankly, exonerations of what we all agree is a tragic and unhappy mess in the Home Secretary’s private life do really sound hypocritical, don’t they?

I really don’t agree with you, and let me make one thing very clear. I have always said that politicians should be entitled to their private lives, and the Question is, is something in someone’s private life an interference with their public duty. And you have seen in David Blunkett last week, you are seeing again today, someone focusing on the issues he is supposed to focus on. It is identity cards today, it was drug-related crime and antisocial behaviour last week. He has delivered record numbers of police officers, he has done a fine job as Home Secretary and I have every confidence in him, and whatever the difficulties of his private life, those are part of his private life. That is my view.

Having two children by someone else’s wife, isn’t that antisocial behaviour?

If you want to make those comments, you can make those comments, but I happen to think that his private life should be separate from his public performance, that is what I think and I have actually always made that clear.

Interesting that the distinction you are making is is he doing a good job in his public life, and his private life remains separate. Obviously the allegations are that he misused his role. Surely that must come into your consideration, does it not?

Of course that would be a different matter and that is why he has said that he wants this independent investigation, but I have no doubt at all that he will be exonerated by it, and I have known David for a very long time and as I said to you a moment or two ago, I think he is someone who has done a superb job and will continue to do that. And for that very reason, obviously if there is a crossover between public and private then that is another matter, but that is precisely why he, at his insistence, I should just tell you this because it is typical of the man, he insisted that we have someone independent look at this. He could have simply asked the department to do it, many other people would have, but he insisted that someone independent should do it because he wanted to make it absolutely clear to the public that there is nothing improper or wrong in this situation. And as I say, he will carry on doing his job as Home Secretary, he is up today in the House of Commons, he will be talking about identity cards, I think you will see someone absolutely on top of his brief, as he was last week when I was doing the drug-related crime with him, when we did antisocial behaviour together. And you can have a view about this, you can either say that the private life of a politician is fair game for everyone to go at, or you can take the view that it shouldn’t be.

But when you say it is a complete separation between the private life and the public life.

I am not saying that actually, as I have just answered Mark, I have said obviously if there is a situation in which there is a crossover and someone does something improper, that is another matter, but I don’t believe that has happened here.

But are you saying that personal morality, as long as it is not criminal and as long as it doesn’t intrude on to someone’s public life is no concern of your’s?

I do believe, look you have got to take a decision on this right from the very outset, and this is my view. In my view politicians are entitled to their public lives, like other people are. Now if there is an interference with the performance of their public duty because they do something improper in relation to their public office, that is a different matter, but what you saw with David Blunkett last week, what you are seeing with him again today, is someone focused on the issues of crime, antisocial behaviour, identity cards dealing with the problems of the abuse of our public services, illegal immigration and asylum, he is a man getting on with the job. Now there has been an allegation made that there was a crossover between the public and the private, and he has said, pretty fairly I think, there should be an independent investigation of that, and that is what there is going to be. So let’s wait and see what we get out of that.

Just changing subjects very briefly, there has been a lot of talk about the Chancellor’s position of late, I wonder if you would reassure the Chancellor that his job is safe in No 11.

Again, without using the same language I have just used, I am mystified by those stories, a particular one that appeared in your paper on Saturday I have to say, but forgive me for that. You know we are working extremely closely on the pre-budget report and there is always going to be the normal mischief-making stories from various quarters, but we are both of us well inured to it.

You have been seeing Gerry Adams and a Sinn Fein delegation this morning and the Chief Constable of the PSNI, how much more time are you prepared to give Sinn Fein and the DUP to see if they can reach a deal? Do you think the deal is still achievable and are you prepared to stretch the deadline?

We are obviously at a very intensive stage now. I think probably the best thing is for me to say very little to you, because we have been so many times before when hopes have been raised and then they have been dashed, that I am almost fearful of raising them. It is obvious that people would like to get a deal done. Whether that is possible or not, the next few days will tell us. But I don’t think there is probably anything I can very sensibly say to you at the moment.

Could you give us some sense of what is in the document they are actually discussing, and will it be published this week?

I don’t think I should really at the moment. Look it concerns the same things as has always concerned us, the important thing about this is it never changes in its basic particulars that have to be ironed out. There has to be a clarity – on the one side a commitment to exclusively peaceful means, on the other side a commitment to power sharing. Everything else is trying to make it work, and that is what we are doing, and I think it was important that the meeting took place today between the Chief Constable and the Republican leadership, and I think the more that people are in dialogue, the better it is, but those occasions in which I have said I thought we were just about to get somewhere, and then we go up another cul-de-sac, have made me very wary of getting into the business of making any predictions for this week.

… politicians’ private lives are their own concern, but isn’t the problem for you as a government that you are as a government now increasingly intervening in people’s private lives as they would see it, things like whether people can smoke, whether they can smack their children.

Well I don’t think it is quite the same. What we are trying to do in relation to smoking for example is I think to respond to what is a genuine public concern.

Again the issue there is how do you protect children, and in fact what we are trying to do is update the law so to get a common-sense solution on it. I don’t think it is quite the same really.

You are a close friend and colleague of David Blunkett, so presumably you must have known just perhaps how tangled his private life was getting. Did you at any stage offer him any words of advice or caution, perhaps worrying that this could backfire?

I think any conversations I have had should remain private really, that is my feeling on that.

What has been, with perhaps the exception of Adam’s Question, your worst moment this year and what has been your best?

That wasn’t my worst moment with Adam’s Question, I always look forward to Adam’s Questions. What has been my worst moment? I never know how to answer these Questions. Why, what do you think was my worst moment?

I was wondering whether there might have been news from Iraq that was your worst moment this year.

Yes, well probably. Whenever there is anything that is going badly wrong and British forces are involved, that is always your worst moment as Prime Minister, never mind this year or any other year. But the meeting this morning I should tell you about with the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq was very interesting, and I just wish more of the other story of what is happening in Iraq would get across, because he was actually, for all the difficulties, upbeat about both the elections and the prospect in the end of restoring security there. But that is always the toughest and most difficult time, but it is even more difficult for the people in the frontline.

My Question is also about security, but not ID cards, it is more an international issue. Iran, immediately after it signed an agreement with the EU three on stopping the process of enrichment, … was involved in that process and that has resulted in a lot of concern at an international level and that there were talks again, and only today Iran has given a guarantee that it won’t use the centrifuges and stop the process of enrichment of uranium. But what guarantee to you have? In the past Iran has been involved in secret activities in uranium, what guarantee do you have that it won’t start that process again?

I think the most important thing is to make sure that they are in a process where the Atomic Energy Authority has got the ability to hold them to account for the undertakings that they are given. And really our task, France, Germany and Britain have been working very closely on this as you know, our task has been to get the undertakings from Iran, but to recognise that in the end we will have to make sure that the right authority, in this case the Atomic Energy Authority, then make sure that the undertakings they have given are actually adhered to, and I hope this can be done. Look, we have made some progress on the WMD issue. Libya has been a tremendous success in that context. Iran, let us hope that the undertakings are both properly given and adhered to. There is the issue of North Korea that is obviously extremely important and I will have a chance to talk about that with the President of the Korean Republic when I see him on Wednesday, but we will make sure we hold Iran to account.

Last week in your press conference with President Chirac you said that basically you would be ready to support those in any country who want the basic freedoms that people in France and Britain take for granted. The student movement in Iran, and many prominent reformists, have called for a referendum to replace … with democracy, and to ensure those basic rights such as human rights and democracy that you referred to last week, what substantive support are you willing to give this movement and these prominent reformists?

Well I think the first thing is to make it clear that we support those who would like the same democratic rights as we have here. I think the second thing is that I hope that the UN panel that is looking at a reform of the UN, I made mention of this in my Mansion House speech, that we do get to the point where we start as an international community to put greater pressure on regimes for basic democratic human rights for people. Now beyond that there is a limit frankly to what we are able to do in any given situation, but I hope by a means of dialogue, and also pressure, that we can get change. I sympathise with people in Iran and elsewhere who want the same freedoms that we want, and I have no doubt at all that in the end the best way to run any country is through democracy.

We have all done enough on the break stories about Northern Ireland over the years to understand your reluctance to make predictions there, but do you believe that there is now the serious possibility that by the end of this year the IRA will have renounced arms completely, and do you sense a step change in the relationship between Sinn Fein and the DUP?

That is why I am reluctant. I think all those possibilities are there, but whether it happens or not is not simply down to me, so let’s see how the next few days go. But obviously I think that everyone would like this to happen because we have been so busy trying to get this done. I have lost count of the numbers of meetings I have held on this issue over the years. But it is a natural reluctance born of experience, that the one time I stand up to you and say I think it is about to happen, and then go back to the offices and find it has just unravelled, so anyway we will wait and see.

Your own special envoy to Iraq has today Questioned whether full democratic elections can go ahead in January. Are you prepared to accept staggered polls and perhaps a potential boycott by the Sunnis?

No, we want the elections to go ahead, and as the Deputy Prime Minister was saying just a moment or two ago, we want them to go ahead on time. We hope it will be possible to make sure that everyone gets the chance to participate. The UN is obviously in charge of this process, they are keen for it to happen. For the Sunni parties, what is important to say to the Sunni community is everyone wants your participation in this. Everybody knows that the future lies in all different parts of the community in Iraq coming together and being prepared to share power with each other and be prepared to accept the verdict of the people. And one thing that is very clear, I should say to you, is that when for example in Fallujah control is retaken, it becomes very quickly clear that those people that were running the city before the terrorists and insurgents, it wasn’t easy living for people living under that rule. I hope at some later time we will be able to give, once we have collated all the evidence, some of the details of some of the things that were going on in these cities when these terrorists and insurgent groups were actually running the place, because it makes you realise how important it is for the ordinary Iraqi people in these cities to have their city back.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Home Secretary’s behaviour, sometimes politicians feel they are unable to perform their public duty because of the kind of stories that are circulating. Today for example we would probably be talking a great deal more about ID cards. Has the Home Secretary ever discussed the possibility of resigning with you?

Do you believe that the election should take place on time in Iraq, to such an extent that you would be prepared to see an increase in British forces in order to protect the voting process?

Well as I have always said, the main thing is actually to build up the Iraqi capability, and there is a lot of that that is coming on-stream in the next couple of months, so we don’t have any plans to send additional British forces. But of course it is important that the elections take place, this is the thing that will create a completely different atmosphere inside Iraq and I hope round the rest of the world, since for sure you only have to talk to the people in Iraq to realise, or the people that come and visit here, that whatever the problems of security, and those are real problems, they know perfectly well that if we walk away, if we quit the job and don’t see the elections through then we will have simply created another whole period of instability, whereas if the elections can take place, all the lessons from the other experiences we have had, even though there will be difficulties that will continue over a period of time, of course there will be, but the elections are a tremendous galvanising impact on the whole population and they then can see that actually the purpose of our being there is not to suppress the population, or to take Iraq’s oil, or to stop people worshipping the Muslim faith, but on the contrary to make sure that instead of a source of huge instability in that region, we have a country that is stable and democratic and a proper partner for other countries in the wider world.

Given the lamentable record of the government in procuring IT systems, what makes you think that a computer system covering a national database for every single UK resident can either work or come in on budget?

Well you say the lamentable record of the government, the truth is that IT systems for the private and public sector, not for this government but for all governments, and for the private sector as I say as much as the public sector, they always end up, particularly when they are on a large-scale, having difficulties. And when I was asked earlier, I think it was Andy who raised the issue of why are we waiting, we are waiting precisely because we know that building up the technology is going to take time. But there is a very important reason why, quite apart from everything else, I think it is sensible for us to go for identity cards. There is a lot of talk about the cost of identity cards, actually the additional cost of identity cards over biometric passports is not that great, it is actually limited, very limited in fact. The real point is this, that we are going to have to introduce biometric passports over a period of time because the requirement for biometric visas in the US, in other parts of Europe is going to be there, so there is no real option but to go in that direction for passports, the actual addition of identity cards on top of that is not so great. Now we have got to get the technology right for the passport system, we have got to get it then right for the ID card system, we think we can do that, but it will take time which is why we are leaving ourselves time before it comes in.

In addition to the passport of choice, all ID cards would actually be compulsory. If you look at the past 5 years all the terrorist attacks were in America, in Spain, in the Middle East, they were in countries that have ID cards, while in Britain, thank heavens, we haven’t had this kind of level of atrocity, without ID cards. So isn’t actually pushing for ID cards to combat terrorism would be similar to the reason that you went to war in Iraq?

First of all let me just emphasise this point about the change in the technology itself, because the biometric technology will give us greater security, in other words I think if it weren’t for this technology there would be a greater Question mark over the validity of ID cards in respect at least of issues to do with terrorism. Secondly, I am not suggesting that it can do everything, I am simply suggesting that it is an important addition in the fight against terrorism. But there is a third reason which I wanted to emphasise today, terrorism and security is not the only reason for having identity cards, they will also have a big impact in relation to illegal working and illegal immigration, they will also have an impact in the access of public services where at the moment, although the rules are in place to enforce entitlement to use for example the NHS free, it is difficult for people who are the frontline professionals to enforce those requirements without a proper means of assessing identity. And there is an additional reason, which someone was pointing out to me quite anecdotally over the weekend, and that is for many people incidentally within our ethnic minority communities, for them it is also important to have a means of providing identification quickly and clearly so that we can stop some of the problems that occasionally people feel happen in those communities, where people are stopped on a random basis and there are difficulties. So I think from all points of view it is one of these things which in today’s world, faced with the problems that we have of illegal immigration, illegal working, terrorism and security, the access to public services, now we have this biometric technology, now we are going to have to use it for passports, we might as well give ourselves a full blown identity card.

We know from MOD briefings that the Black Watch is going to be amalgamated when it comes back from Iraq, there is nobody in Whitehall who thinks differently. Will this be a source of personal sadness for you, given the job which you now know they are doing in Iraq, or do you still personally hold out any hope that they might be saved?

First of all I think we should wait for the actual decision. Secondly, the one thing that has become very clear is that these are issues being handled by the senior Army officers themselves, in other words as was being said I think over the weekend, this is not a case of the politicians trying to push the Army in a particular direction; on the contrary, this is about their own operational efficiency. And the third thing, and I think this is very important for members of the public, some of the discussion of this has almost been as if on any basis the Black Watch and other regiments were to be disbanded in the sense that the soldiers were to be sort of laid off, or there would be no sense of an identity within the regiments. That is simply not the case. But in relation to the specific proposals, I wouldn’t read too much into any briefing until you get the final decision.

How can you hope to win the argument over Europe when the argument is being made continually by the Chancellor that we are economically superior to our European partners?

Well I don’t know that he is saying that, what he is simply saying is that if you look at our economic performance over the last few years on issues to do with employment and growth, we compare very favourably. But the argument that is going to take place is over the European constitution, and the reason why I think, as does the Chancellor, it is sensible that we are part of that is that we have protected absolutely the so-called British red lines in relation to setting our tax policy, our foreign policy, our defence policy, we have protected our asylum and immigration borders control and there is no point in this country marginalising ourselves in Europe for the sake of it. So I don’t think that the fact that our economy is doing well really prevents us making that argument. The argument about the single currency, the position has never changed there, there has got to be a clear case for joining it, and at the moment there isn’t.

A Home Secretary carries quite a lot of secrets around in his red box. Were any secrity checks done on Kimberly Fortier?

Another divorce Question. It has been reported today that the Ukraine may be in danger of breaking up because of the stalemate over the Presidential election. Assuming you don’t want that to happen, what can you do to help it not happen? And related to that, it has also been reported that very sophisticated western-trained election techniques and personnel and campaigns and computers have been introduced into that electoral contest, similar techniques succeeded in overthrowing autocrats in Serbia and Georgia, but not in Belarus. To what extent is there a risk that some people will say that foreign influences are brought to bear on these delicate internal democratic processes? Are we in danger of being accused of western interference in the very process itself in these difficult and sometimes ethnically and socially divided contexts, that whoever wins is going to be seen to be illegitimate?

I think we are certainly trying to help, that is what we are trying to do, whether it is help with the electoral process to make sure it is fair. This is now with the Ukraine Supreme Court, I think they should be allowed to make a judgment on it. We are obviously in touch with all the leading people on that, the European Union representative, Javier Solana is doing what he can to make sure that we try and find a way through. And I think the concern of everybody at the moment is how do we best keep the country together, work out what has actually happened and then work out what should happen, and do it in a way that doesn’t transgress those sensibilities that you are talking about. I think that is just best left to the people doing it behind the scene for the moment.

Can I just take you back to a specific point about the crossover between public duties and private lives. David Blunkett, I think through his staff, has admitted that he gave first class rail vouchers. These are paid for by the taxpayer. Do you think it is right for a Cabinet Minister to give vouchers, paid for by the taxpayer, to his clandestine lover who is married to somebody else, or is it, as you would have said in your own manifesto in 1997, people feel let down by a political system that gives breaks to the few, an elite at the top increasingly out of touch with the rest of us.

Well I think if there are complaints about that they can be made to the proper authorities.

You as the Prime Minister should have a view over the conduct and behaviour of your Cabinet Ministers. He has admitted giving the vouchers.

As I recall it, forgive me for not having studied absolutely every aspect of this, but it was in relation to one particular warrant, but I think he has dealt with that in his statement yesterday and if people have got complaints about it they can take it up with the appropriate authorities. But I think that is not really the main complaint that people are making, the allegation is over this visa application and he has very fairly himself said there should be an independent inquiry into it. We should let that happen.

No, but I don’t think that is necessary because there is a perfectly simple way, if people want to raise that particular issue, I doubt frankly they do, but if people do want to they can raise it with the appropriate authority.

I just wondered if you have any special plans, say on 5 May, to mark your last day as a 51 year old?

No, but I will be back up in the north-east around that time, I have no doubt, just for an ordinary constituency visit.

On the issue of asylum, given that you think that one of the main reasons the ID card should be introduced is to act as a deterrent for illegal working, do you have a view on the issue of a quota system, is your mind open to the idea of imposing a quota to reassure the British public that you are taking control on the issue of asylum?

Well on asylum, I don’t quite understand the concept of a quota there, because you have to examine each case on its merits, and the Conservative proposal there for a quota system simply wouldn’t work, and they are suggesting that you go and process everyone abroad. The whole point is because of the changes we have made, the vast majority of asylum claims are now made in country, so you have to look at those claims. The best way to deal with the asylum issue is the way that we are dealing with it, which is why Britain has had the largest fall in the numbers of asylum applications of any major European country in the past couple of years, it is to put the border controls in at the ports, it is to make sure that you fast track as many of the asylum claims as you can, it is to make sure, when we inherited the situation from Michael Howard it was taking 20 months on average to process an asylum claim, it now takes for the majority of them just a few months, and some of them are dealt with now within weeks, and it is making sure then that you raise the performance on removals, which is the thing that we are looking at now. But quotas wouldn’t help that. As for quotas on immigration, where obviously that has got a different set of considerations, in effect, we will be announcing this at a later time when we publish our strategy on the forward policy on asylum and immigration, but in effect there I agree we need to get to a situation where you are absolutely clear that those people coming in on the work permit route are actually necessary for our economy to come in. Now I think that is more a Question of making sure that the rules are absolutely adhered to, rather than plucking some arbitrary figure, you might want it to be lower, you might want it to be higher at any particular time, but that depends on there being a job for someone to go to that someone who is here in Britain can’t do, and that is what we will be addressing shortly. But it is a very frustrating situation this, because I think often people don’t understand why on asylum, once you have failed the claim, you can’t just remove the person out of the country. If you talk to any member of the public, and this is a big issue for people in the public incidentally, which is why I spend a lot of time working on it, what they feel is well why is it the case that once you fail an asylum claim you can’t just say to the person right you are out of the country, you go back to where you originated. And the answer to that is it is very, very difficult to do that unless you have documentation that proves that the person originated in that country, otherwise what happens is the country concerned refuses to take them, and that is the problem with removals. That is why when again we came to office, the number of removals was about I think a third of what it is today, with roughly the same number of asylum seekers, we have actually trebled it but it still falls short of the number of claims coming in. Now what we are doing there is we have made it an offence for people to destroy their documentation, for the first time, and also we have got a lot of work going on now with particular countries saying to them we demand from you the ability to send people back if we can reasonably satisfy you within a quick period of time that these people indeed originated with you, and I think that is the only way we are going to get this dealt with.

On the back of Jack Straw’s recent visit to the Middle East, it is quite clear that there is a game plan being prepared to enable the Palestinians to deliver some form of security. Could you let us into your innermost thoughts on what your next plans are in regard to this? Is there going to be a London conference? How can you ensure that the Palestinians are able to deliver the security that Israel desperately wants? And also when, if you are going to Israel in December, the one big concern the Israelis have is that the one topic that has been touched on earlier about Iran’s nuclear capability, there are continuing reports, especially over the weekend, that despite everything and all the safeguards Europe has tried to obtain to prove that the nuclear proposals Iran has do not lead to a nuclear weapon, everybody is talking about there is a secret plan in operation to produce one which is going to cause great alarm in the region. And what are you going to do when you are speaking to the Israelis about Iran’s continuing support for terrorism?

It is precisely for that reason that we remain absolutely on the case in respect of Iran, that is why we are putting a lot of work and energy into making sure that Iran complies with the Atomic Energy Authority rules, and we will carry on doing that. We are well aware of the fact, never mind for Israel alone, but for other countries in the region, why that is important. And in respect of the issues to do with the Palestinian state, my preoccupation is to make sure that we have a clear way forward for a proper functioning Palestinian state, based on the principles of democracy, transparency, freedom, security, not just for the Palestinians themselves but obviously for Israel too. And I can’t say any more about the way we will take this forward at the moment, but the window of opportunity has opened for us – to use the old cliché – over the past few weeks and in my view we would be very foolish to pass up the possibility of going through that, and that will require a lot of attention to the detail of what we are going to do, and that is what I am working on for the moment.

A slightly different Question on the Balkans, which you don’t hear very much of since Iraq, or maybe even before. The international community is still present in both Kosovo and Bosnia and next summer there are talks due to start on the future of Kosovo. What is the British government doing, if anything, in particular to ensure this process goes smoothly?

Well as you know, we are doing our best to work with the parties to try and make sure that the future of Kosovo is properly ordered and can meet what are sometimes the competing claims of different sides on it. And I think it is just worth pointing out that when we look back to the Balkans 12 – 14 years ago, hundreds of thousands of people died when we failed to intervene and take action. Following the intervention in Kosovo, despite all the problems, we at least have a proper future possible for people. So we will carry on working with the Serbian government, people in Kosovo, surrounding countries, to try and make sure we find a way through. I am reasonably optimistic we can actually from the most recent information I have had, but it will take some hard negotiating no doubt.

Would you acknowledge that given the number and nature of Bills in The Queen’s Speech that David Blunkett is in charge of, that an awful lot rests on public confidence in his judgment? And secondly, on a different issue, are you personally going to take on board Peter Mandelson’s strictures to avoid exaggerated boasting about the state of the economy, and have you passed on that view to the Chancellor?

First of all I think I have said all I need to say on David and the various Bills that you see he has got to handle. And on the British economy, we are making it very clear, I think today in fact we are making it very clear, Britain is working, we are proud of the fact that unemployment is down, youth unemployment of a long term nature virtually disappeared in this country, 2 million extra jobs, years of success of economic growth, no we should be very proud of that indeed.

It is your stated position that Ministers’ private lives are largely their own business. Given the leader of the Opposition’s recent decision to let one of his own Ministers go over an alleged private indiscretion, I wonder what message you think this sends to the electorate about your respective positions on morality?

I think I will let you determine that one. I am sure you will be very well qualified. I don’t want to comment on his position in relation to that.

Are you satisfied with the latest development in Lebanon in response to the United Nations Resolution 1559, especially there is a lot of talk now that the Syrians will make a further redeployment of their forces, and if not what will Britain do? And my second Question is, Richard Pearle told the Jewish Chronicle that President Bush did not agree with your suggestion to host talks between Palestinian and Israeli officials in London? How would you respond to that?

I don’t think I have any response to that, except to say obviously I have my own means of conversing with the President. First of all in relation to Lebanon, well again we are working closely with the other European partners, with America too. I discussed the situation at some length actually a short time ago with President Chirac. We want to make sure that the United Nations resolution is carried through, that is what we are trying to do.

Liverpool Council are pushing for the city to become smoke-free, including all pubs and restaurants. They have got a Private Bill before parliament. Will you personally endorse what they are trying to do?

I think I will personally do whatever the Health Secretary is doing, which I don’t actually know, on this particular issue.

The Health Secretary is saying that only pubs serving food can ban smoking, so it is going a step further than that.

Yes, well I will go in step with him, whatever he is doing in relation to it. Look I understand what the issue is here, but I actually am not quite sure what the interplay is if a local authority decides that it wants to go further than the national situation. Perhaps I had better find that out and get back to you on it.

Climate change will be one of your two priorities for the G8 Presidency. How could your Presidency be fully efficient when the Bush administration does not intend at all to sign the Kyoto agreement?

You are not trying to cause trouble are you? Well first of all I think everybody accepts that America’s position is not going to change on Kyoto. The most important thing is to try and get a dialogue with America on how we recognise both the scale of the problem on greenhouse gas emissions, and a process that enables us to confront and deal with it. This has been an area on which we have a longstanding disagreement, we do, with America over its position on this issue. But I hope that through the G8 process we can get back into dialogue on it, because one thing is for sure, however much we want to criticise America, without America’s participation there is not much of a prospect of getting the action that we require. Kyoto, now it is clear the Kyoto Protocol will come into being because of the Russian ratification, on the other hand I don’t think anyone is believing that America is actually going to come into this themselves. What I am trying to do is to find a different way therefore in order to handle this issue.

You said that the issue of the disbandment of the Scottish regiments is being handled by senior Army officers. Well those senior Army officers have made two things clear: one, that the plan to scrap the regiment is going to go ahead; and secondly, that the final decision is not a military one but lies with you. Can you tell the soldiers of the Scottish regiments, many of whom are still out fighting in Iraq, and the Scottish people, why you can’t or won’t come up with a solution that will preserve their regimental status?

Well we are trying to come up with a solution that satisfies everybody, and no-one has made any announcement at all so far as I am aware yet, but what we are trying to do is to marry two things together if you like – one is the regimental identity and people’s belief that they want to keep that regimental identity, and the other is the Army’s desire, sensibly in the modern world, for a more flexible means of people crossing over in the disciplines within our Armed Forces. That is what they are trying to do. And I don’t think this argument is actually helped by trying to polarise it around some great issue of party politics, it is not. The reason why these original proposals were made was because the Army felt that the old system was not sufficiently flexible to meet modern needs. Now what we are trying to do is meet that objection and issue, at the same time as making sure that those people who are going to continue to be employed by our Armed Forces still retain that sense of identity within their regiment, that is what we are trying to do. Now there is no point in me speculating about the outcome, or frankly you, until we actually get the outcome. And of course ultimately all these things are political decisions, but the point is this, you know what is sensible for us to do is to work with the Army to get the right solution for our Armed Forces, and what I think was being said over the weekend by the Commanding Officer of the Black Watch is there is a view of the actual people presently serving that is also important in this, and isn’t necessarily the view that is there in parts of the media. And it is important again in addition to understand that nobody is suggesting that the people who are fighting and doing a fantastic and courageous job with the Black Watch now out in Iraq are somehow going to be made unemployed, or all their traditions are going to be disbanded. Nobody is suggesting that. The issue is simply whether the rigid demarcation of regiments, and the fact that people stick with the one regiment throughout their career, whether that is sensible to be maintained in today’s world in the same way, that is the discussion that is going on and it is a discussion that as I say I think we should be able to have without it generating stories about how we are sort of betraying this, or doing down people, and that. We are not trying to do anything other than get the most effective British Armed Force we can for the modern world.

Can I ask a broader Question about the David Blunkett situation? How saddened are you that loss of public trust in government has moved so far down the line now that a Cabinet Minister has to resort to an independent inquiry simply to prove what he is saying is true?

Oh come off it James. If he wasn’t doing that everyone would be saying have an independent inquiry, otherwise it means you have got something to hide.

You will be one of the leaders going to the Summit in Brussels next month where Turkey’s membership will be discussed as to whether or not a negotiation date will be given. Now the indications are that Turkey will either be asked, along with other things, to recognise the Republic of Cyprus, and also they are talking about a screening process, which was not the case with the previous candidate countries. Before I ask you your comments vis a vis Turkey’s European aspirations, can I also ask you about northern Cyprus where after the referendum where the overwhelming majority said yes to the Annan plan, do you think the west, the European Union and in particular the United Kingdom, one of the guarantor powers, have let the Cypriot Turks down?

I don’t think we have let people down because we are trying to find a way through, because obviously if there is going to be a deal for the whole of Cyprus it has got to involve the Greek Cypriot side as well as the Turkish Cypriot side. So as you know, we actually wanted people to vote in favour of it, on the Greek side as well as the Turkish side, so we will carry on trying to find our way through that. But let me make it very clear to you in respect of Turkey’s application to be a member of the European Union, it should be determined according to the same criteria and in the same way as any other application. Turkey is not actually asking for favourable treatment, it is asking for the same treatment, and it should have the same treatment. So there should be no special obstacles put in its way, but the criteria that have to be applied should be applied to Turkey fairly and properly. That is my position on it.

One of the Nobel Peace Prizewinners in an open letter, it was I think this weekend, has criticised the UK government for not implementing its obligations drawn by NPT, and the same issue has been raised on other occasions by MPs and especially independent organisations like Baseek (phon), especially the separate cooperation with the US government on developing a new generation of nuclear bombs has been put on the serious Questions many times. In contrast the UK is asking Iran to ignore her uranium enrichment activities which is awarded to all NPT signatories. I wonder how do you comment on this contradiction?

I am afraid I comment by very simply saying that we are abiding by our international obligations and will continue to do so, and what is important is that Iran does that as well. And any of the obligations that they have that are to be monitored by the Atomic Energy Authority they should be complying with and should be giving the facilities necessary to monitor them. Because otherwise, sometimes when the argument is put in that way I have to say to you it raises concerns on the part of people here.

John Prescott is due to visit China later today, so how would you comment on his visit? I know there have been very frequent and high level official visits between the two countries, and how do you think China is important to Britain? And some people say that there have been very warm and active high level exchanges between the two countries, but not very much interest or response from the general public here. How are you going to generate interest from the public here?

Ooh, that is a tough one. I don’t think that is a discrimination against China in any shape or form, I think it is that we tend not always to take a huge interest in the state of bilateral relations between individual countries frankly unless there is a problem. And in respect of China I think our relationship is very strong. I have instituted over these past few years a different order of relationship between the British government and the Chinese government. We work very closely now, not just on the economic and trade issues, but on political issues as well. We value that. The China Task Force that John Prescott heads up has done excellent work. China is a huge emerging market for us, but it is also a world power in its own right, and it is important that we have a dialogue. And even where there are areas where we may disagree on – you know human rights Questions or other things – it is important that we continue that dialogue. And I personally have greatly welcomed what I think is a different type and a better type of relationship with China than we have had before, and of course I would say to you that the Chinese community in this country is a very active community, and whatever the general interest in the relationship from the British public, I know that they take a very keen interest in it.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Monday, November 29, 2004

Prime Minister’s Press Conference

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries