PROFESSOR MICHAEL BARBER:
Good Morning. Since I presented to you a year ago, there has been really significant progress on delivery, as I hope to be able to demonstrate to you over the next ten minutes. I will give you a whirlwind tour of key indicators of delivery and then draw some conclusions. And everything you see on the screen is in the handout and will be available on the No 10 website after the event.

The delivery role I think you are familiar with. We are the people whose job it is to pursue delivery of the Prime Minister’s key goals in the public services during this parliament, so we are the people in Whitehall who love data and graphs more than anybody else, and the reason we love them so much is because they represent, when they are going in the right direction, the real progress for citizens, and when they are going in the wrong direction they represent a problem measured, which is the beginning of solving it.

I want to start with progress on health. There has been a huge build-up in capacity in the NHS over recent years, and here you can see it reflected in the nurse numbers which have reached 386,000 last year and are still rising. You can see the build-up also in the doctor numbers which are rising and will continue to do so. But it is not just about capacity, we are also ahead of trajectory to achieve reductions in heart disease mortality, so real health outcomes, and by 2010 we would expect that target to be met. Similarly in relation to cancer mortality we are on track to achieve a 20% reduction there, and the cancer reduction in mortality rates is falling in all the major cancer types, so again you can see this in your handout.

The citizens’ main concern about the Health Service over recent years has been waiting, and here you can see the waiting list which hovered above a million until early 2003, but in the last year has fallen very significantly, and in May of this year it was below 900,000 for the second consecutive month, and we expect it to continue falling during the next year. But from the citizen point of view again, waiting times are what really matter most. The blue line on this graph shows the achievement of a maximum 9 month wait for surgery, which was achieved in March of this year, just as the 12 month one had been achieved a year earlier, but the red bars represent the really big challenge, which is the December 2005 target that no-one should wait more than 6 months. And what you can see here is that very impressive progress has been made over recent months, and although the task is not complete, that is very much on track. There is an explanation for this progress, it is not just about the build-up of capacity, it is about the introduction of choice at 6 months for patients, the introduction of competition through treatment centres, and indeed the introduction of three year funding for primary care trusts which improves planning and accountability.

The data you have just seen has been independently verified. This is a quotation from the Audit Commission report earlier this year confirming that the accuracy of the data is sufficiently robust to enable reasonable judgments to be made.

Accident and Emergency has a target that no-one should wait more than 4 hours for treatment in an Accident and Emergency department, and until early 2003, as you can see from the graph, performance was plateauing. At that point A & E was included in the star ratings for hospitals and that resulted in a step change through the sharper accountability, and in January of this year financial incentives were introduced which have brought another step change, and we would expect that target to be met on time this December. The same would be true of the primary care target that no-one should wait more than 48 hours to see a GP, or 24 hours to see a primary care professional. Again this is confirmed by independent organisations. The King’s Fund in a briefing paper recently, in March of this year, said waiting times are generally shorter than at any time in the history of the NHS.

So what are the key lessons from this? Well first of all there is a build-up of capacity, and that is crucial, but in addition to that there is greatly improved management and there is also the beginnings of the impact of a very radical reform agenda, including choice incentives and alternative providers. John Reid has identified a number of challenges ahead though, one is of course seeing through the current targets to delivery, but also preparing to meet the ambitious new waiting times target set out in the five year strategy, the introduction of a greater degree of choice, personalisation and system wide reform, and in the meantime tackling MRSA and improving dental services. Overall though there has been very impressive progress in health and there is a challenging agenda ahead.

Turning to schools, we don’t yet have the data for the 2004 tests for 11 year olds and 14 year olds, nor do we have the GCSE and A level results for this year, they will be available in August. But we are able to demonstrate, as with health, the big build-up in capacity, shown here in teacher numbers which have grown successively in every year since 1998. We are also able to show that teacher recruitment, which was at a low point in 1999/2000 is on the way to recovery. At that point there was a serious problem for the government, but since then there has been very impressive progress in recruiting teachers, and this recruitment is not just general, but it is actually happening in the traditional shortage subjects such as science and maths, which are both recruiting ahead of target now.

The second area we can focus on is the reduction in the number of low performing schools. In 1997 there were 616 secondary schools where fewer than 25% of pupils achieved five higher grades at GCSE. By last year that had reduced to 224. Inevitably the remaining schools are an intractable problem, they are the most difficult to solve, and that is exactly what the City Academy’s programme to be built up over the next 5 years is designed to tackle.

Over the same period of time there has been a rapid build-up in the number of specialist schools. In 1997 8% of secondary schools had a specialism, by the end of this year it will be almost 60%. More importantly though is the impact of specialist schools on performance. This is the incremental rise in GCSE performance of all secondary schools over the last 15 years. If we look at specialist schools we see the impact they are having. The first cohort of specialist schools in 1993/94 opened when they were below average, but by last year they were significantly above average. The same is true for the 1998/9 cohort which last year was significantly above average, even though they had been in the programme a shorter time, and it is true for every successive cohort between the two cohorts I have mentioned.

The Chief Inspector of schools confirms that progress has been made, and this has been confirmed in successive reports from Ofsted, including the most recent one which says that over the past 10 years standards have undoubtedly risen in primary and secondary schools. There are serious problems though too. Truancy for example has remained intractable over a 10 year period, and it doesn’t matter whether you look at secondary or primary education, no progress has been made there.

So what are the lessons here? Well the teacher shortage problem has been tackled very effectively, we have had independent research confirming that the literacy hour is not just affecting the 11 year old test results, but actually 5 years later has an effect on pupils’ GCSE results, and there is a quotation from that research in your pack. We have seen how the sustained focus on low performing schools has delivered progress, and the specialist schools programme is having a substantial effect. But there are serious challenges. The most urgent is to get off the plateau for 11 year olds’ literacy and numeracy, and we will know whether that has happened in August. Tackling truancy is the second major problem, but beyond all of that there is the implementation of the 5 year strategy announced recently. So overall in education, a steady advance but with major challenges ahead.

If you look at law and order, again as with health and education, there is a real build-up in capacity, shown here in police numbers, which are now at record levels and still rising. Overall crime, as measured by the British Crime Survey, and these figures are published today, is falling and you can see that very vividly here on this graph. On burglary, one of the major volume crimes, we are well ahead of trajectory to achieve a 25% fall by March 2006, and on vehicle crime we are ahead of trajectory to achieve a 25% fall by March next year.

The steep rise in robbery which took place between 2000 – 2002 has been reversed by the street crime initiative and since then kept under control. Violent crime, which is the subject of much debate in the press today, is down according to the British Crime Survey, as represented here, but there are some significant challenges. One challenge is that the recording standards for violent crime were tightened up 2 or 3 years ago and as a result of that tightening, recorded violent crime appears to be rising. However, independent research demonstrates that had that tightening up not occurred, recorded violent crime would be falling slightly, just as the British Crime Survey shows. However, these overall figures do mask some real problems in relation to violent crime. One is that gun crime has risen, as represented on the graph here, and although that rise has flattened off in the last 2 years, it now needs to be reversed. Similarly with anti-social behaviour, it rose significantly in recent years, and you can see that here. In the last year it has turned round, partly as a result of the implementation of the government’s strategy following the 2003 legislation, but obviously there is still a long way to go to bring that under control. And the blitz on alcohol-fuelled violent crime, which the Home Office began 2 weeks ago, is beginning to have an impact.

The most important indicator of all in relation to crime is the chances of being a victim of crime, and what the data shows is that the chances of being a victim of crime today are lower than they have been at any time since the British Crime Survey was introduced in 1981.

In relation to asylum applications, after steep rises in 2001 and 2002 there have been even steeper falls. This too is the result of the implementation of very radical reforms, the closure of Sangatte, non-suspensive appeals, visa regimes, freight searching and juxtaposed controls in northern France. As a result of this, progress in the last year in the UK compares very well with EU countries, but of course more progress is possible and we would expect the figures to go down in the next 6 months. The data here too has been independently verified, in this case by the National Audit Office.

So on law and order, the key lessons are again that you have got a build-up of capacity, you have got increasingly effective interdepartmental collaboration and the beginnings of the effect of radical bold reforms. But there are significant challenges ahead. David Blunkett has announced the intention of getting further reductions in crime across the board, the tackling of alcohol-fuelled violent crime in the current campaign will be very important, as will tackling … offending. But beyond that it is about implementing the plans set out on Monday in the five year plan.

Overall though the Home Office has improved very significantly and major gains have been made, which do provide a foundation for the radical shift that lies ahead.

In relation to rail, where patronage has risen steadily over recent years, but on performance it is a much more mixed picture. Performance dips every autumn, which apparently is genuinely a result of leaves on the line, and you can see that here. In 2000 that coincided with the Hatfield crash and brought the slump that you can see on the graph. Since then what you can see is incremental progress year on year from the low base that the Prime Minister referred to, and although we have just had the best autumn performance for a number of years, performance is still significantly below pre-Hatfield levels, and there is a long way to go.

The key lessons here are that the industry is beginning to take shared responsibility for performance and managing performance better particularly improvements in Network Rail’s performance over the last year. But as Alistair Darling has identified, there are significant challenges too: one is to sustain those incremental gains I have just shown you; the second is to implement his radical new structure without loss of performance in the meantime; and the third and most important is to ensure that the new structure really does drive up performance, because there is a very long way to go.

Summarising now, this table shows you all the indicators that I have just referred to, and it shows firstly the direction, ie is the trend good, positive or negative; and secondly, whether on that indicator we are currently ahead of 1997 or behind, and as you can see, the picture is largely a positive one. We are also in a position to say why that has occurred where it has occurred, and our evidence from the delivery unit shows very clearly that the most impressive delivery results from a combination of bold reform with really effective management. Effective management has these characteristics: clear priorities, targets, good real time data, management against trajectory and the capacity to intervene – exactly what any major business would look for in running its operation – and bold reform is a combination of investment, choice, incentives, new providers, transparency and longer term funding and planning horizons.

Summarising, last year I said to you that there was demonstrable progress in most areas, but it was not yet irreversible. This year I am more optimistic. There is widespread and significant progress across the public services which is becoming irreversible. The foundations have been laid for further radical reform. The task is far from complete.

Thank you for your attention.

PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you Michael, and he is around to answer any questions if you have got any questions on that.

QUESTION:
Prime Minister, if I could pick up on one of the themes from the beginning of your statement. What are the qualities that you are looking for in Britain’s next European Commissioner and how important in the run-up to the referendum is that job going to be?

PRIME MINISTER:
We need someone who will represent Britain’s interests well, and of course it is an important job.

QUESTION:
No further thoughts about who it might be?

PRIME MINISTER:
No, because I think we should have this conversation when the decision is announced probably.

QUESTION:
Why don’t you announce it?

PRIME MINISTER:
Because I am not ready to, Adam, if you don’t mind.

QUESTION:
Have you made your mind up …

PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is me, isn’t it? Did you want to ask anything else, because there is no point in asking me about that until the decision is made really.

QUESTION:
Fair enough, but could I just pick up on one other issue. It is a question going back to the Butler debate. You were asked directly at the time whether anyone had told you when that crucial piece of intelligence was withdrawn, and some of us felt you hadn’t given an absolutely clear answer on that, so could I ask it again?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can give an absolutely clear answer, no is the answer, for the reasons that Jack explained.

QUESTION:
On Iraq, a number of the families of Service personnel who lost their lives have said that they feel that the people who were killed were sent to Iraq on a false prospectus, for the very simple reason that they believed they were doing their patriotic duty to defend British interests from a clear and present threat, something which you said repeatedly was there, which has not been found, therefore they feel betrayed by you. Do you think you owe them an apology?

PRIME MINISTER:
First of all I have expressed on many occasions my sympathy for the families of those who died in Iraq. But secondly I have also said why I think the conflict in Iraq was necessary for the security of this country, for the security of the wider world. And I can’t say that I believe that to be wrong. I still believe that had we backed away from enforcing United Nations resolutions against Iraq, then we would have left not just Saddam in charge of Iraq, we would have left Iraq an unsafe, unsecure country that did pose a threat, and on what we know now did pose a threat to the region and the world, and that would have been the wrong thing to do. So it is of course difficult, and I think you should always be aware that not all families feel the same in respect of this, but of course it is difficult because I have deep sympathy for the families of anyone who has lost their lives in Iraq, but I actually do believe that they gave their lives in a cause that is important for our security, for the security of the wider world, and we have the prospect now, there is a massive amount still to do, of turning Iraq into a stable and democratic country which will have a huge impact, without any doubt at all, on the stability and security of our world.

QUESTION:
Peter Mandelson was forced to resign twice from your government, do you now believe that he is fit to take high office again?

PRIME MINISTER:
I think anything to do with Europe, you are just going to have to ask me when we have taken the decision.

QUESTION:
Can I ask one on Iraq, if you don’t want to answer on that. I think as Andy said, this is a question which has been asked, but I am not sure that you have fully had a chance to answer it yet. Butler found that caveats, warnings and doubts had been missed out and many people believe therefore that was misleading. Who left them out, why were they left out and do you now accept that it meant that people were misled?

PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t accept that people were misled because I think if you read the Joint Intelligence Committee assessments and the judgments, their judgments are absolutely clear. And I notice it was said the other day in the debate that there was some doubt about whether the Joint Intelligence Committee assessments judged that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, not merely historically, but at the time of the Joint Intelligence Committee assessments. It is simply not right. If you go back through and read out those assessments, as I said in the House of Commons yesterday, I defy anybody to say if you are the Prime Minister receiving those assessments, you wouldn’t have made the conclusions that I made. And in respect of the caveat, what has happened here is that people have taken things often from different assessments, run them altogether and suggested that actually they undermine the judgments. That is simply not true. It was absolutely clear from those assessments what the judgments were, those judgments were that Iraq posed a threat both in terms of chemical and biological weapons and the continuing nuclear weapons programme. And the other point that is essential to make as well, and incidentally I think we have published all the drafts of the dossier, so there is no question of people taking things out, but the judgments were clear. And the other thing that I think is tremendously important, I know the difficulty in this area is that people don’t do balance, either all the evidence was wrong, or all the evidence was right. Actually as Lord Butler points out, what remains, and remains still validated by the intelligence and the work of the Iraq Survey Group, is that he retained every strategic intent to redevelop these programmes the moment the inspectors were out of the country; secondly, that there was a list of procurement of materials in order to sustain that WMD capability; and thirdly, that he was developing ballistic missile programmes of a long range strategic nature and breach of the United Nations resolutions. So it is important people don’t lurch from one extreme right over to the other and say actually the evidence shows he wasn’t a threat at all, because that is not true.

QUESTION:
… that the words you uttered to the British public were not what you had been told by the intelligence services and he said this was very serious indeed.

PRIME MINISTER:
No, sorry he actually didn’t say that.

QUESTION:
When you are asked this question, well he didn’t use the phrase very serious, but it was the central finding wasn’t it?

PRIME MINISTER:
No, I am sorry, he did not find …

QUESTION:
Which meant that your words and the dossier’s words were not what the JIC original statements had said, and you seem to be answering a different question from the one you are repeatedly asked on that.

PRIME MINISTER:
I am sorry, I actually did answer your question very clearly, but you are now putting to me a different question, but I am happy to answer it. It is certainly not the case that Butler found that we had misrepresented the intelligence to people, indeed the opposite is the case, and at each stage of this people have sought to say that we set out to deceive people about the intelligence. If you listed out for your viewers those judgments from the Joint Intelligence Committee assessments, in March, never mind in September, then I think your viewers would conclude from that that nobody getting that intelligence assessment from the Joint Intelligence Committee could conclude other than that Saddam was a WMD threat. I think it would be extremely difficult to do otherwise. And the caveats that you are referring to are not caveats, this is where, with the greatest respect, it is not me who has been misleading people over this, the caveats have not been caveats that said therefore these judgments are not judgments we can make; on the contrary, the caveats were simply saying, often because of the deception and concealment tactics used by Saddam, the intelligence is limited. But the judgments were the judgments that I have listed for people, and I think that is extremely important. Now we can go back over all this again, and we have done it in the debate and done it on many, many occasions, but I think the simplest way to test it is simply to take the Joint Intelligence Committee assessment and say if you had never bothered with the dossier, just put out those Joint Intelligence Committee assessments, what would you have concluded – that he was a WMD threat or he wasn’t? And I think the only conceivable answer to that, and as I say it would be useful just to list them out in the precise terms in which they are for your viewers, the only conceivable conclusion would be that he was indeed a WMD threat. And more than that, as I say the other important thing is also to draw attention to the part of Lord Butler’s report where he lists the reasons why indeed he was a WMD threat, and I think, I am quoting from memory here, he also says that it would be a rash person who concluded that the banned missiles would never be found.

QUESTION:
You said that you are making very impressive progress in health on the domestic agenda, but at least 5,000 patients are dying every year from infections they catch in hospital whilst they are there being treated for other conditions, and you have hired tens of thousands of extra nurses, at great public expense. Why is the problem getting worse under your government and not better?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well first of all, the only reason why we now have detailed figures on MRSA is because we changed the basis of investigating this to make it mandatory a few years ago, so it is not actually clear whether this problem is getting worse or better, but it undoubtedly is a problem. Secondly, it is just important for the public to bear this in mind, because otherwise they get a slightly false perception of this from the bald statistic if you like about 5,000 deaths. The majority of these people will be in a very, very frail condition in any event. However, it is a problem and is one of the reasons why we say yes there has been tremendous progress on the National Health Service, but there are still challenges we have got to overcome. Now we believe that by a combination of expanding capacity, greater focus on hospital cleanliness, making sure that we employ not just better methods of hygiene, but also better methods of research as to how MRSA is caused, then we will deal with this issue.

QUESTION:
Drink fuelled violent crime has risen dramatically. Can you guarantee to communities that are suffering from this problem that 24 hour opening, albeit with phased closing times, will not make things worse?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think that is a very good point, but I will tell you what I would say. I would say that it should be perfectly possible to have more flexible opening hours without people going on the rampage and beating other people up. And the fact is why should the vast majority of law abiding people be denied flexible licensing because of a small minority who end up, frankly whether the pubs and bars stay open more or not, are out for mischief. And the way of dealing with this I think is not actually to restrict opening hours, but is to make sure that we come down really hard on this. Now the police under the new powers that we have just introduced have got for the first time the powers to close pubs and clubs which are regularly the scene of fights and problems, and they have also got the ability, through on the spot fines, to fine people for being drunk and disorderly, and you know as a result of the measures that we have introduced also in making sure that we are cracking down for example on pubs and clubs that are irresponsible in the way that they sell drink to those who are under-age and so on, we have a whole panoply of powers that can be used. And I think one of the things we need to do over the next few months is in communities up and down the country, get the police and the local people together and say here are the problems on anti-social behaviour, of which this alcohol-related violence is one, and these are the powers and this is how we are going to tackle this problem. And what is interesting is there are places around the country where this is now being tackled properly.

QUESTION:
Are you examining the possibility of sending British forces to Sudan?

PRIME MINISTER:
We are not at that stage. The situation in Sudan is very serious indeed. In Britain however, let me just make it clear to you, Britain is the largest cash donor, even above the United States which is the second largest cash donor, to Sudan. I will be speaking to Kofi Annan about this later today. We are working very closely with the Africa Union and the European Union, and what we need to do in the short term is get the government of Sudan to take the measures necessary to control these militias and to make sure that the aid and assistance gets through. Now we rule nothing out, but we are not at this stage yet. So some of the headlines on this are somewhat premature.

QUESTION:
So when you say you rule nothing out, it does remain a possibility?

PRIME MINISTER:
You know this is always the danger you get into with this, if you don’t rule it out you have suddenly ruled it in. We are not at that stage yet because we have a strategy that we are employing at the international level, not just this country but the United Nations and the Africa Union. The Africa Union for example is sending a cease-fire monitoring group there now, they will report back. We are actually giving some assistance to the Africa Union in doing that. They in a sense are in the lead on this and we simply need to discuss this with the United Nations, with key partners. We want the European Union to make a far bigger commitment on this, and I think there is going to be a meeting on Monday about this. We discussed it at Cabinet this morning. I am in virtually daily contact with people, in fact I am in daily contact with people over this, and as I say I will speak to Kofi Annan later tonight about it, and we have got to move in concert with people. But the critical thing is to try at least at this stage to make the current strategy work.

QUESTION:
Just to follow up on that. Do you think that if the Sudanese government doesn’t meet its commitments, the West has a moral responsibility to intervene, if necessarily militarily, in the way that we intervened in Kosovo, and in the way that we didn’t intervene as it were in Rwanda. Do you think ultimately if this sort of slaughter and starvation goes on, we have to as the West intervene?

PRIME MINISTER:
I believe we have a moral responsibility to deal with this and to deal with it by any means that we can. But I think we need to work very carefully with the Africa Union because after all they are the regional political body and there is no point in doing things unless you have got very clear support in the region. And we just have to wait and see how it develops. We have a strategy at the moment, but as I say this is something we are absolutely focused upon and what is happening there at the moment is unacceptable, and of course we have got a moral responsibility to do what we can.

QUESTION:
Given what you said about the JIC assessment, isn’t it nevertheless the case that Lord Butler did talk about a collective failure by government, and as head of the government you ought to have considered resigning. And assuming you are here to stay, have you set yourself any personal targets that you want to achieve before you do quit, as it might be joining the euro?

PRIME MINISTER:
Mmmm.

QUESTION:
Do you think you should take the can for Butler?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well first of all, as I say the important thing about a report like this is to get the balance. What they said was that it was a serious weakness, we should have had the caveats in. We have accepted that. That did not however alter the fact that the report in general reflected fairly the JIC assessments. And all I say to you is that if you go back and you read those assessments, I started to read them out in the House of Commons, in fact if I had them here I would read them out to you again now, but you could not possibly on that basis say, and this is what we tried to establish with the dossier, that we shouldn’t go back to the United Nations to enforce the UN resolutions. Again it is very important, and I think Lord Butler makes this point, that the publication of the intelligence was not the reason to go to war, we didn’t go to war in September, we went to war in March, it was the reason to go back to the United Nations and say we have got to get the inspectors back in there and this time he is going to comply fully with them, or else action will follow. And the reason we went to war in the end was to enforce the UN resolutions. And the focus on this, I know because of the way that things are simply re-written afterwards, the focus on this was all on September, actually we went to war in March because it was clear he was not complying with the UN inspection regime, and his obligation was to comply, not partially or somewhat, but fully, and that is the reason for it. And as for the sort of goals, we have just been publishing these five year strategies, we are going to be publishing a lot more over the next few months and I want to see them through.

QUESTION:
Given that Dr David Kelly was in Iraq with the Iraq Survey Group a matter of weeks before the withdrawal of the British intelligence on chemical and biological weapons production, and given the nature of his interface with the defence intelligence: one, can you confirm whether he had any role in the withdrawal of that intelligence; and two, was it not wrong, given that the JIC did know of the withdrawal of that intelligence, and there is the possibility that it played a role in the pressures upon Dr Kelly, is it not wrong that the JIC kept that information from so serious an investigation by Lord Hutton?

PRIME MINISTER:
First of all, I am not entirely sure I understand exactly what you are trying to say with that.

QUESTION:
I am asking if Dr Kelly played a role in discovering that that intelligence was wrong and needed to be withdrawn, did he play any role?

PRIME MINISTER:
As far as I am aware, no.

QUESTION:
Is it something that you will enquire into, and isn’t it something that should have been enquired into?

PRIME MINISTER:
I can certainly enquire into it, but my understanding is that the so-called 45 minutes intelligence was not withdrawn until the Butler ..

QUESTION:
This is not the 45 minutes, this is the chemical and biological weapons production capacity.

PRIME MINISTER:
I simply don’t know the answer to that question, but I can get someone to find out and let you know.

QUESTION:
And the JIC?

PRIME MINISTER:
The JIC, for the reasons that the Foreign Secretary has given, and I think the reasons that Baroness Symons gave in the Lords the other day, look, I understand people will carry on chasing after and over individual items, it is just the way it is, but I think you will find there is a perfectly sensible explanation.

QUESTION:
Have you got tickets to Athens yet? Will you be spending much time cheering on Britain’s competitors and will you be spending much time pushing London’s bid?

PRIME MINISTER:
Cheering on Britain’s competitors? I think that would be a bit odd.

QUESTION:
Britain’s athletes.

PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, the people who will be competing, I thought you meant those competing with us for the Olympic bid. Well I am not entirely sure that I should actually comment on any travel arrangements I have got, if you don’t mind for the minute. If it is OK to discuss that with you, we will, but I am just slightly hesitant about security issues on that. But of course I will be absolutely cheering on from whatever standpoint I have, Britain’s athletes, and hope we do well. And the bid I think is going well. I think the technical nature of this bid is going to be the single most important thing. I think people are slightly missing this in all the discussion. In the conversations I have had, it has become clear that for the first time there are very specific criteria that are going to be applied technically to this bid and I think you will find we have an outstanding technical bid that we submit.

QUESTION:
Why do you and your government insist on forcing through plans for an asylum centre in the countryside near Bicester, it has been condemned by the Red Cross, the Refugee Council, the Law Society, BMA, Save the Children who all say smaller urban centres would be better. The government did promise on the floor of the House that they would abide by the planning process, yet the Deputy Prime Minister over-ruled the planning inspector. Shouldn’t you now pull the plug and scrap this unwanted and unpopular scheme?

PRIME MINISTER:
Look, everyone wants us to deal with asylum and no-one wants us to set up centres in their community. I totally understand that, but the reason why the asylum figures are now running actually below what we inherited in 1997 on a monthly basis is because we are taking tough action. We have withdrawn benefits from failed asylum seekers, we have got all those procedures along the French coast now that is stopping people coming in through Eurostar, we have been targeting countries where we are getting a lot of asylum claims from and we are actually dealing with them in a far faster and more effective way. But the accommodation centres and the detention centres I am afraid are a vital part of dealing with this, but there is no other way that we are going to be able to deal with it.

QUESTION:
But isn’t it in the wrong place?

PRIME MINISTER:
You tell me the right place.

QUESTION:
I am wondering what you think now when you read JIC reports, which presumably you are getting the whole time. As you said, what would anybody do if they were Prime Minister if they read things like this is in front of me, that Saddam will attack Israel, use chemical and biological weapons against our troops, utter rubbish of course as it turned out, so when you read reports saying maybe similar things about similar countries now, do you take them with a pinch of salt, or do you say as Prime Minister I have to act?

PRIME MINISTER:
To be fair to the intelligence services, first of all they also, this is something I think is continually forgotten in this discussion actually, the same intelligence assessments said the moment it looks like UN Inspectors are going to come back in, he will engage in a huge concealment programme. And just remember one thing, again I don’t think the public often get the full picture in these things, from 1991 – 1995 UN inspectors were in Iraq and concluded that actually there wasn’t the problem that they thought. It was only when Saddam’s son in law then defected to Jordan that we had any clear idea of what he actually had by way of WMD. And so the concealment programme that he employed then is what the intelligence said he would employ if it looked like UN Inspectors were coming back in. So from that moment on really in September when it became clear we were going to get the United Nations resolution, that is what started to happen. And the other thing I think in fairness to our intelligence services I should say, is that as the Butler report makes clear on Iran and on A Q Khan and on Libya, there has been fantastic work done. And my experience of our intelligence services is that of course intelligence is intelligence, it is pieces of information that come to them, and it is very rare in my view for a pattern of intelligence to be wrong. And we have probably, British Prime Ministers, partly because, I won’t go into certain issues which are obvious where we receive intelligence, in my experience it is very very rare that they are wrong about a pattern of intelligence and I think they do pretty good work on the whole.

QUESTION:
So you would make the same judgment even knowing that information in the past was wrong?

PRIME MINISTER:
Look, it is important that we implement the report on the validation procedures, of course that is true. But I do say again, I hope people are not left with the impression that the entirety of the intelligence in respect of Iraq is now considered invalid and withdrawn, because that isn’t true.

QUESTION:
I know that Northern Ireland has slipped from the media radar over here, but on 12 July we had a situation which was quite serious where considerable lives could have been lost. Could I ask you about your commitment to solving the issue, your hopes for a deal between the DUP and Sinn Fein, a really historic compromise. And if that doesn’t happen, what is the alternative?

PRIME MINISTER:
The alternative is always grim, and you are absolutely right that nobody should be complacent about the situation in Northern Ireland, and the fact that we have managed over the past 7 years to create a different situation and context is at one level a great achievement, but there is still an immense amount to do. The only basis upon which this is going to work now, and we got back to this in September, as you know, and I have set aside significant time in September to deal with Northern Ireland, and my commitment remains absolute and total, as it has been over 7 years, I probably spend more time than any British Prime Minister on Northern Ireland for I don’t know how long. But the only way we are going to reach an agreement is if it is absolutely clear that paramilitarism is at an end in respect of anyone seeking to go into government. What has happened is we have gone beyond the point of compromise on that. People were prepared to have a period of transition, but now that must be absolutely clear. On the other hand, if that violence really is genuinely given up for good, and that means dismantling all the preparations for it, everything for it, if that is given up for good then there is the obligation for people across the communities to work together, in government together. But I think you have got this opportunity now, the DUP and the Ulster Unionists are saying, provided it is clear the violence has ended then they will go into government. Well what is clear then is that the violence must end and the obligation to go into government must then be delivered.

QUESTION:
Is September the deadline, do you need this deal in September?

PRIME MINISTER:
I think that I if I was to turn up to another one of our press conferences after a further meeting and say you know we have had a very good discussion and we are going to carry on discussing it, but we haven’t reached an agreement yet, I think even the most optimistic people would start to say is this ever going to happen. So there is no point in being sort of arbitrary about it, but I think unless we really do make progress in September we are in difficulty. So that is the reason why we have set aside significant time for this.

QUESTION:
Given that British forces are now serving in probably more overseas … than at any time for 20 – 30 years, given that you have also announced swingeing cuts in the British Armed Forces, is it sensible to be thinking of deploying them to another hotspot in Africa? And could I just ask, as you said you hope to see these five year plans through, is that now the signal that you intend, if you win another general election, to serve a full term?

PRIME MINISTER:
First of all, I have to take issue with you about swingeing cuts in our Armed Forces. The frontline troops are actually not being cut. It is true that in order to reconfigure our forces there are some support staff that are going, it is true that there is some equipment that is going, but it is also true that there is other equipment that is coming in and there is boost to the forces in some of the areas like logistics and intelligence and so on. I would also just say to you, we have got I think at any one time about 20% of our troops deployed, I think it is around about 20%, we have got 9,000 troops in Iraq. We are very conscious of issues to do with overstretch, of course we are, but the Armed Forces do a magnificent job and we have got now, as indeed I think the Chief of Defence Staff was pointing out in the newspapers this morning, we have got the opportunity of what is really a 7 year sustained period of defence expenditure increases. And we have got to be very careful, and I think some of the reporting of this has been a little bit naughty in suggesting that all there is is just cuts. What they are doing is they are reconfiguring their capability, that is sensible, they need to do that, they are going to be doing different things. Our Armed Forces today need to be highly mobile, highly flexible and it is unlikely, I think everyone would accept, that they are called upon to do what the Armed Forces would have been called upon to do 60 years ago, actually defend this country in a traditional sense. And therefore, for example, today, or rather at the time of the Iraq conflict, we got our forces out to the Gulf in half the time that it took us in 1990-91, and that was because we had been reconfiguring our forces, and we have got for example far greater what they call strategic lift capability than we did a few years ago. Now all of that costs money. We are getting two new carriers, which are big, big pieces of equipment, but it means that some of the other ships we won’t have the same requirement for. So I think it is just important that people get this in a sense of balance, otherwise you could pick up some of the papers and say you know we have savage cuts across the Armed Forces. It is not what we are doing. We are actually reconfiguring them to make them better for today’s world, and we are in fact boosting investment in defence significantly in order to do that.

QUESTION:
Since the handing of power to the Iraqi government, led by Dr Allawi, the security situation had been deteriorating. Is there any advice for the present government in terms of handling the situation, and does it mean that it needs a different approach to the whole issue?

PRIME MINISTER:
No, I am not sure he would agree with the description that it is deteriorating, it is certainly not improving to the point we want, the attacks are actually significantly less however than they were in say April or May. But it is true, there is particularly around the Baghdad triangle a major problem. The answer to it is to do what he is doing, which is to ensure that we build the Iraqi capability, and that is not just in terms of police and civil defence, but in terms of army and in terms of intelligence as well, and they are doing that. And in the end the one thing I think is very clear, certainly from our perception of how Iraqis are feeling, is that they know these people now are their enemy, they are not an enemy of the coalition, they are an enemy of the Iraqi people, and the people they are trying to kill are people who are helping Iraq get better.

QUESTION:
Ten years is a very long time in any job, has there been any point when you have thought about moving on?

PRIME MINISTER:
No.

QUESTION:
Not at all?

PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I think that what we have achieved as a government and as a political party over the ten years has been to show people, I think for the first time in the 100 years of our history, that you can combine a strong commitment to economic prosperity with a commitment to social justice. And we have still got things to do. As you see from the presentation on delivery, it is true that we have fulfilled what we said we would do in terms of the improvement in investment in public services and so on, but there are still big challenges that remain. And we want, I want, to see them through.

QUESTION:
Every year since 1999 the Treasury has promised cuts in Civil Service numbers and they have then risen. So why should anyone believe the latest set of promised cuts?

PRIME MINISTER:
I am not sure that I entirely agree with that description that they have said that every year. I think people recognised we had to take certain numbers of people on for issues to do with pensions and prisons, but there are programmes now, I have been working on them myself, in the main departments that will significantly slim down the centre. And actually if you look at Civil Service numbers, a better point to make would be that they do tend to go up and to go down, and then to go up again, and there are actually fewer Civil Servants employed today than ten years ago. In 1994 there were more Civil Servants employed than today. They then went down, they have then gone back up again, and now they are going to come back down again. And actually if you really want to look at this, I think the most important aspect of what is happening is that as a result of some of the technology we are putting in, we should have a reduced requirement overall for people to do the work that we want. Anyway you can judge in 2 or 3 years time whether it has actually happened or not.

QUESTION:
The UK voted in favour of the United Nations General Assembly resolution on the West Bank security barrier that called upon Israel to tear it down, but the Israeli government vowed to continue building this barrier. Now will the British government consider with its EU partners to impose trade sanctions against Israel if it fails to implement the resolution. A senior EU official was quoted by an Arab newspaper recently as saying that the EU/Syria Partnership Agreement will be signed within weeks, how would you respond to that?

PRIME MINISTER:
On the latter point, I am simply not sure I am afraid, I will have to try and get you a response to that later. In respect of the first point, it is not a question of sanctions against Israel, it is a question of simply expressing our view of that. But I think the most important thing, Israel is going to do whatever it thinks it has to to protect its security, that is the reality to be honest, and the most important thing is to get the peace process back under way, and the most important thing in respect of that will be the meetings in September where there will be a security plan drawn up with the Palestinians, and what we need to have is the disengagement of proposals of the Israeli government then taken through, and we need then to be ready for the Palestinians to be in a position to respond to that, to be empowered with the proper security plan, with the proper health from the European Union and others to deal with it. And the debate about the security fence will go on, and we have made our position clear on it, that the only way that that fence is going to be dealt with is to deal with the security issue, in my view, however strongly people may feel about it.

QUESTION:
The European Commission is calling once again for a reduction in the British rebate on the EU budget. We have had tones of theatrical outrage from your government in response, but you and the chap next door keep telling us that the British economy is in a wonderful state, the second highest per capita economy after Luxembourg in the European Union. What is the economic case any longer for Britain having a rebate? Is it fair that much poorer countries which have just joined the European Union should have to contribute to that rebate, and in what circumstances would you give up any of the rebate, or is it impossible for you to give up anything that Margaret Thatcher won?

PRIME MINISTER:
Right, OK. Well first of all the reason the rebate is there still remains, which is that otherwise our contributions would be completely unfair. Now it so happens, actually in part as a result of the deal we got in Berlin a few years ago, not actually just after the negotiations of the previous government, that over the coming years our contributions, net contributions, would be more in line with countries of a similar size and wealth. But the rebate is there for a very good reason, and the Commission periodically come and say these things, but I am afraid the reasons for it remain, and that is why the rebate remains.

QUESTION:
No reduction in any circumstances?

PRIME MINISTER:
We did at Berlin, again precisely knowing that enlargement was on its way, we made sure that the abatement didn’t result in any unfairness. But the point as I say is it is there for a reason, and the reason we haven’t given the rebate up is because the reason for it remains.

QUESTION:
An Australian newspaper last week reported the very serious allegation that the Iraqi Prime Minister, Dr Allawi, had personally executed six insurgents. Have you personally taken steps to satisfy yourself that those very serious allegations are or are not true?

PRIME MINISTER:
I have got a feeling that Dr Allawi has already dealt with this pretty comprehensively and quite strongly.

QUESTION:
You haven’t …

PRIME MINISTER:
I know of absolutely nothing to sustain such an allegation. And I would just point out that anyone who actually talks to him will realise he is a deeply humane person who had to flee his country, along with millions of others, because of Saddam, and I find the story pretty odd and I would think highly unlikely.

QUESTION:
I would like to know if you are interested in winning the referendum for the European Constitution, and if so, when will you start campaigning for it?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well we have begun campaigning for people’s consent to the constitutional treaty when we agreed it and I can’t say exactly when the referendum is going to be, but we have made it clear that the British people will have the final say. And I think that the first thing to do is to make sure that they realise that this treaty was one generally accepted elsewhere in Europe, was a victory for British negotiation in the sense that it protected our foreign policy, our defence, our taxation, our social security and all the things that we desired. And so if Britain wants to remain at the centre of decision making in Europe it is important that we agree it and carry it through.

QUESTION:
Were you surprised that your officials did not tell you that a crucial piece of evidence had been discredited and withdrawn, and when precisely did you find out that it had been withdrawn, was it during the Butler inquiry or when you read the Butler report?

PRIME MINISTER:
It was actually just shortly before the Butler report. And no, this is in answer to the first question, no for the reasons that I think Jack Straw gave. And I do say, I know people carry on chasing after this because there will then be something else they will chase after, but there really isn’t anything in it.

QUESTION:
… I said over here, Prime Minister, but not … is leaving, you look after him, this is his last press conference.

PRIME MINISTER:
OK.

QUESTION:
Is your government’s decision to press ahead with the referendum on regional government in the north east, while postponing the referendums in the other two northern regions, a vote of confidence in the north east, or just a face-saver for John Prescott?

PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you Paul, and it is a vote of confidence in the north east, which it is, because I think that people in the north east want the chance to have a say on whether they should have regional government there, and the reason for the difference is because there have been concerns about all postal ballots in respect of the other two regions that the Electoral Commission is going to report on. So if John was saying we will go ahead with this, irrespective, he would have been attacked for ignoring the concerns which the Electoral Commission, I think in September, are going to report upon. As far as I am aware that is the reason for it. And thank you for all those questions over so many years.

QUESTION:
Inaudible.

PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you, well a moving moment for both of us.

QUESTION:
You and Dr Barber have given us a huge welter of statistics this morning, but why should viewers believe them if they don’t chime with their own experience, because we have seen in today’s papers the crime statistics could be interpreted as dreadful and very good in an honest way, there are data, as you implied, to support both points of view. And on a very specific point of importance to a lot of public sector employees whom you are anxious to support, it has been reported this morning that there has been a deal on the two tier labour force problem which has dogged you for years, it is both confirmed and denied, a deal with Downing Street, not with anyone else. What is the truth of the matter ahead of your conference on Saturday?

PRIME MINISTER:
On the two tier workforce, I have given a commitment that we need to resolve this, and I think you will have to wait for the results of both the policy forum and the party conference, but I am actually committed to resolving it. Now the precise details of it is obviously a matter that we have got to discuss with people, but I think it is important that we make sure, as a basic element of fairness, that we try and make sure that people have the protections that they need. I think that is the most I can say to you at the moment on that. And on the first, well I think you have got to be careful of this. There is no doubt, according to the British Crime Survey, that crime is falling. And on recorded crime, if you leave out the fact that they changed the basis of the way crime was recorded, they changed the statistics some time ago, if you strip that out, even recorded crime since we have come to office is down. The problem is on violent crime, and the best evidence of this will come from the police themselves who I think will tell you that actually some of the rise in recorded violence crime is not just because of the extra numbers of police, but also because in certain areas like domestic violence, people are rightly reporting it. And I think if you take the situation overall, I don’t actually think there is much doubt about the overall figures. And incidentally you have got to be careful about figures in relation to this. I may be doing the Evening Standard a disservice, in which case I apologise, but I think their headline today about violence crime is 37% up in London, is that the actual British Crime Survey says that the chances of being a victim of violent crime in London have gone from 5.6% to 7.7%, and they have taken that 2% as a proportion of the 5.6% and put a 37% headline on it. Now I think you have just got to be slightly careful then that people don’t run away with a completely false picture of what is actually happening. I know perfectly well that crime is still a really big issue for people, anti-social behaviour in particular. But overall, particularly with vehicle crime and burglary, crime has come down significantly, and with this anti-social behaviour stuff that makes people so angry out in local communities, we are getting after it. I have spent the last 3 years getting legislation through the House of Commons, increasing the number of police and community support officers to deal with it, and we have the powers ready to deal with it. And I think on the whole actually, to be fair to the media, they do try to get a pretty balanced picture out about this, but it is important that we do get a balanced picture, otherwise I think people have a greater fear of crime than the statistics really warrant.

QUESTION:
Looking at all these marvellous statistics on delivery, it looks like the only person you have a case for firing is Alistair Darling. Is that why you haven’t had a reshuffle yet?

PRIME MINISTER:
A bold way into the reshuffle question. I think actually if you look at what has happened over the past few years since Hatfield, I think Alistair has actually done a brilliant job of stabilising it and moving it forward. Look the problem with transport is perfectly simple, you have had a 20% increase in usage of rail, and road, and tube, so you have got massive additional demand on the system, and at the same time you have got under-investment over a long period of years. And what Hatfield really showed, and that is why it was obviously a defining moment for the railways, what Hatfield showed was that though we thought the track infrastructure was not in good shape, we didn’t know how bad it was until Hatfield happened. I can’t remember the exact figures about how much track has been renewed, but I think it is hundreds and hundreds of miles worth of it since Hatfield, but we have had to have a completely different scale of investment as a result of that, and that is the problem on transport. So I don’t go around, and actually Michael’s presentation does not say everything in the garden is rosy, it is not what we are saying, but we are saying there has been really significant measurable improvement on health and education, there is a balance to be struck on law and order, but I actually think we are beginning really to get there on that. On transport, as a result of the combination of extra demand and under-investment, it is very tough, I accept that.

QUESTION:
And how do you want to duck the reshuffle question?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well any way you want me to duck it really.

QUESTION:
I don’t know if I am allowed to, on behalf of hacks, but can we wish you at least a restful holiday.

PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you, and thank you all for applauding that sentiment. I notice the spontaneous outpouring there.

QUESTION:
Two quick questions: One, with international leaders, including even Egypt, saying that Yasser Arafat is causing them great exasperation and frustration by his attitude at the moment towards some of the Palestinians, especially in the deteriorating situation in Gaza, what message have you got for Yasser Arafat, especially with his role in not allowing his Prime Minister to act with freedom; and second, there are clear signs from both America and elsewhere, that Iran intends to have a nuclear bomb within 3 – 4 years if Russia provides the nuclear know-how. What is Britain going to do, either alone or with its international partners, to ensure that Iran doesn’t get that capability and Russia is stopped from delivering those parts that the Iranians need?

PRIME MINISTER:
The first thing in my message to Yasser Arafat is very simple, it is vital for there to be an empowered Palestinian Prime Minister and Security Minister. There is no way that we will get back into the road map without a proper security plan, properly implemented. And we will provide such a plan, that is what the Quartet will work with the Palestinians and others to do, but it has got to be implemented, otherwise we are not going to make progress. And we have, I know people are very down about the Middle East, perfectly understandably and rightly, but we have the chance to make progress if we have a proper security plan and if Israel then proceeds with the disengagement proposals, which it must do in my view and with the full version of those proposals. Secondly in relation to Iran, it is not acceptable that Iran has a nuclear weapons capability, and that is why we are working with our other partners to make sure that it doesn’t, and we will do whatever we can and whatever is necessary to ensure that Iran obeys the very clear statements that have been made by the Atomic Energy Authority, but it is an important issue this, there is no doubt about that at all.

QUESTION:
Do you share the concerns of the international development administration in London about the American disengagement from the Middle East peace process, and secondly, the situation in the occupied territories, economic, politically, whatever?

PRIME MINISTER:
On the latter point, we have got to get the investment in there, but it is far easier to do it with a proper security structure in place. On the first point, I don’t think the paper actually was saying that, in fact I don’t recall having seen the paper myself, but when I subsequently for Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday read the International Development paper, they weren’t saying that America was disengaging or losing interest, what they were saying was unless we get a security plan for the Palestinian Authority, and therefore some way of getting back into the road map, then there is a limit to what America can do, and that is true. But I should just emphasise to you again that in my frequent conversations with President Bush, and meetings, the Palestinian issue forms a major part of those meetings the whole time, and I do not believe that America is disengaged in this issue, I think it is focused on it but it needs to know it has got partners for peace.

QUESTION:
You will have gathered there is a little bit of suspicion that you have already decided who your European Commissioner is going to be and you are sitting on the decision and you will announce it after we have left and maybe after the Commons has left as well. I wonder if to disabuse us of that notion you could tell us, it can’t be a state secret, exactly how many names are on the shortlist?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well actually it is, so there we are. Until the decision is taken I am afraid you will just have to be patient. I am sorry about that, but there it is.

QUESTION:
Today the US 9/11 Commission is issuing its report on the missed signals and other problems that may have contributed to the loss of life that day. Here in Europe the three months truce extended by al Queda is now over, what have you learnt from the US experience of 9/11 and are you confident that if Britain were ever to face such a terrible threat that you would be able to do a better job of safeguarding life here than the US government appears to have done on 9/11.

PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would actually like to pay tribute, if I might, to the CIA and the work that it has done, and I think it is very, very tough after an event as terrible as 9/11, it is very, very tough because the agency and other people are called upon to defend themselves. But I simply say to you that if anything could have been done, I am sure it would have been done. And I think it is just important people realise, we have been talking a lot about intelligence in respect of Iraq, and it is being said to me now that even with all the intelligence I received I should have said well I am not really sure that this is a problem we need to deal with in that way. I just think people have to understand policy-makers are faced, both within the intelligence community and in government, policy-makers are faced with just a completely different set of dilemmas today on this whole business, because what is absolutely clear is that al-Queda will cause as much death as possible, and if they can get hold of a chemical, or a biological, or a radiological nuclear device, they will. And the whole reason why the business of the last few years comes about, and all the passion that it engenders, is because policy-makers are genuinely worried about this threat. And I believe we are taking whatever steps we can in this country to ward that threat off, but we are all subject to it. Within virtually each major country in the world today there are people who would do this if they could do it, and it is our job to try and stop them. But it is a difficult job and it is having to cause a complete shift in the way that both the politicians and the intelligence services react, and your danger is you are accused of over-reacting one way, and under-reacting the other, and I just think there needs to be some really sensible dialogue with people about this, because the intelligence we receive is simply intelligence, but I can tell you, as I read out when I made my statement on Lord Butler’s report in the House of Commons and I read out all the intelligence we have got about Bin Laden and al-Queda and their attempts to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, now if I wasn’t out trying to deal with that and something terrible happened, people would be asking afterwards what on earth were we doing. And so I think September 11 was the moment when for me, and I think for other policy-makers, the world changed and we have just got to take account of that now, and even if it is difficult sometimes to explain to people, we have just got to be prepared to do our best to do so.

QUESTION:
… before you go on holiday next week, are you going to announce changes in your Ministerial team?

PRIME MINISTER:
It is the reshuffle question. I can’t answer reshuffle questions like that, you know I can’t.

QUESTION:
I am asking you who you are … it is a very simple question … we have sat through all these presentations, surely you must know the answer to that question.

PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I do know the answer Adam.

QUESTION:
Well why don’t you answer it, yes or no, it is not very difficult?

PRIME MINISTER:
Much as I would like to have a dialogue with you about the reshuffle, I am not going to do it.

QUESTION:
I am not asking you to, I am just saying are you going to do it.

PRIME MINISTER:
I think you are just a little bit. Anyway, just before you go, because I know you really enjoyed it, Michael is now going to repeat the presentation. OK, have a very good holiday everyone.

Briefing took place at 19:50 | Search for related news

« Prime Minister’s Questions | Back to most recent briefing | John Morrison/ISC »

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.