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.]

[Update: for some reason our scraper didn’t grab the PM’s initial statement from this week’s press conference. I’ve now corrected that below.]

The Prime Minister’s opening statement

Good
Morning everyone. Can I say how pleased I am to have Adair Turner here,
and Patricia Hewitt also. Today, as you know, I am announcing
that the minimum wage will rise to \xA35.05 an hour in October this year,
and \xA35.35 an hour in October 2006. Around about 1.4 million people will
benefit from these increases, particularly women. The national minimum
wage is also a powerful symbol of how this country is changing for the
good, and it is done within the context moreover of an economy that is
getting stronger, and a society getting fairer. The national minimum
wage however benefits the whole country, UK wide, and as you know there
are press conferences taking place now, making the same announcement,
in Scotland, chaired by Gordon and with Alistair Darling, and in Wales
with Peter Hain, in Northern Ireland with John Spellar.

The
benefit of Britain’s strong and stable economy should be shared by
every hard working family in Britain, by middle income and lower income
families alike. For too long poverty pay capped the aspiration and
prosperity of far too many hard working families. Too often people were
told to make a choice between the indignity of unemployment, or the
humiliation of poverty pay. Today we have both rising employment and a
rising national minimum wage. There is no longer the excuse not
to take a job, because the job only pays sweat shop wages, today work
pays. Now no-one pretends the minimum wage, even at over \xA35 an
hour, is a King’s ransom, it isn’t, but it is a world away from the era
where some people used to earn as little as \xA32 an hour, sometimes even
less than that for long, long working weeks. So we have come a long way.

I
am grateful to Adair Turner and the Low Pay Commission for their
thorough and detailed report, it is a characteristically impressive
piece of work, and Adair will say more about it in a moment. I
might also point out that five years ago predictions were made that the
introduction of the national minimum wage would cripple business and
undermine the competitiveness of the British economy. This hasn’t
happened. As the report makes clear today, and I quote: “The
evidence shows that the minimum wage has been a success, the economy
has continued to generate new jobs, including in the main low paying
sectors, without any signs of an emergence of wage inflation.” But this
should be set in the context of a strong economy where Britain has
enjoyed the most sustained period of economic growth on record, 50
consecutive quarters of expansion. We have got record low inflation,
low interest rates, 2 million more people in work. Long term
youth unemployment that we used to campaign on so heavily in the past
has been virtually eradicated, not completely but virtually, and all
this has happened as we have introduced the national minimum wage, tax
credits, other means of ensuring that work actually pays, each part of
it, as a result of a deliberate government decision, enabled obviously
by the choice that the country has made.

The economy is the
bedrock of everything the government is able to do. We will do nothing
to put the hard won economic stability at risk, and we recognise too
that the economic success is above all due to the hard work of people
in businesses up and down the country. And here too the story is a
strong one. There are 300,000 more businesses than in 1997 and the
number of small businesses is showing the fastest rate of growth for 10
years. So we will continue to run a strong and stable economy, we will
continue with measures to make work pay and end poverty pay in our
country, and we will continue also to prepare the country for the
future through the measures that we announced earlier in terms of
vocational skills, extra apprenticeships, training.

I want the
minimum wage to become as permanent a symbol of decency and fairness
and the values that bind our country together as the National Health
Service was for a previous generation. I think that is possible.

So I am delighted at the news that we announce today and I would now like to hand over to Adair Turner.

Thank
you Prime Minister, and good morning. It is a pleasure to be here
to launch the Low Pay Commission’s 2005 report and to explain the key
features of our recommendations. I think it is useful to set the
recommendations in the context of the development of the wage since its
initial introduction. As you know, the national minimum wage was
introduced in April 1999 with an adult rate of \xA33.60. Its
introduction benefited over 1 million low paid workers and had no
measurable adverse effects on employment or inflation, and that
reflected the deliberately cautious policy of the Commission in setting
the initial rate. From 1999 – 2002 the minimum wage was increased
roughly in line with average earnings to reach \xA34.20 in October
2002. Those increases also had no significant adverse effects,
and indeed employment continued to grow strongly in the sectors where
low pay is most prevalent. By 2002 however, it had also become apparent
that somewhat fewer people had benefited form the minimum wage than
originally estimated due to deficiencies in the labour market data
originally available, but subsequently improved. And it was against
that background that the Commission in its fourth report published in
March 2003 concluded that it was appropriate to increase the effective
level of the minimum wage, increasing its faster than average earnings
for a number of years and thus benefiting more workers. And in
line with our recommendations the adult minimum wage rate rose to \xA34.85
in October 2004, which was an increase of 15.5% over two years in which
average earnings increased by about 8%. We also indicated in our fourth
report that we believe that some further increase above average
earnings would probably be required in subsequent years to arrive at an
appropriate long term level. This report therefore analyses the impact
of the significant up-ratings over the last two years and considers the
appropriate path over the next two.

Our analysis suggests
that the up-ratings have been absorbed by business without any
significant adverse effects. In reaching that judgment we draw on
a wide range of sources of information, we look at overall trends in
the economy and in employment, and in particular at employment in the
low paying sectors most affected. We commissioned detailed academic
studies of specific labour market issues and we consult widely with
business and trade unions. And that analysis overall suggests that the
up-ratings have not had adverse effects. The labour market in general
continues to be remarkably robust and efficient, with employment at
record levels, unemployment at a 30 year low, but wage pressures
subdued and clearly not threatening the Bank of England’s inflation
target.

But more importantly for the Commission, employment has
continued to increase among most of the groups and sectors most
affected by the minimum wage, in for instance retailing hospitality,
social care and security services. The two exceptions to
this are agriculture and textile and clothing manufacture where
employment falls do continue, but our analysis suggests that this
decline is driven almost entirely by global competition from very low
wage countries with the level of the UK minimum wage playing only a
very small role. Frankly, in the textile arena, when you can
manufacture in China at 50p an hour, it makes relatively little
difference whether we are setting the minimum wage at \xA34.50 or \xA35.00 or
whatever.

Overall therefore it is highly probable that the
significant up-ratings of the last two years have been absorbed without
any harmful effects. Our formal and informal consultations with
employers however revealed high levels of concerns about the impact of
the second of the last two up-ratings, ie the increase to \xA34.85 in
October 2004, and a particular concern about the short term impact on
differentials, and it is true that the available macro economic data
does not yet allow a complete appraisal of the full effects of the
October increase, simply because there are lags in the data available,
and so our assessment has to balance the available macro data with the
input from consultations. Striking that balance, we believe that there
is a strong case for continuing along the path of up-rating the minimum
wage, outlined in our last report, with a further increase relative to
average earnings over the next two years. But in light of the level of
employer concern we judge it appropriate to proceed with caution. For
that reason we are recommending that the increase over the two years
should be above predicted average earnings, but not substantially so.
We also consider that the up-rating should be phased so that the
increase in the first year is modest, allowing employers further time
to adjust to the impact of the October 2004 up-rating. And as the
Prime Minister has said, we are therefore recommending that the adult
rate of the minimum wage should be increased to \xA35.05 in October 2005
and further increased to \xA35.35 in October 2006.

In addition to
recommending an adult rate, the Commission also needs to make
recommendations on the two youth rates which now exist, the 18 – 21
year old youth rate and the 16 – 17 youth rate. And the first point to
stress is that the Commission believes that the flexibility of the
youth rates is essential to the success of the minimum wage. If
the current adult rate applied at all ages, there would probably be
harmful employment effects on young people, and the existence of a
separate youth rate is fully consistent with the forthcoming Equal
Treatment Directive, which is the anti-age discrimination legislation,
and we believe it will be important that the directive is implemented
in a way that continues to allow employers to make full use of the
flexibility of a lower rate for young people, where that is
appropriate. At present for instance 16% of 18 – 21 year olds are paid
at a rate below the adult minimum wage, though obviously above the
youth rate. The Commission therefore recommends that it review
its proposals for the October 2006 up-rating, and we conduct a review
in February 2006, and at that stage in addition to considering whether
the macro-economic conditions still support our recommendations, that
we should confirm then that the detailed implementation in the UK of
the Equal Treatment Directive facilitates the use of the flexibility
which the youth rate is intended to provide. We believe however
that the strong reinforcement of the principle of lower rates for
younger people should be combined with a change in the upper age limit
for the youth development rate from the 22nd birthday to the 21st
birthday. We are recommending that the youth development rate be
increased from \xA34.10 today to \xA34.25 in October 2005 and \xA34.45 in
October 2006. This rate of increase is slightly lower than the proposed
rate of increase in the adult rate, reflecting the fact that while the
overall labour market is very robust, the youth labour market is robust
but slightly less so. We suspect that the reasons for this are
unrelated to the minimum wage, but we don’t know for certain and that
gives us a cause for caution. We are making no recommendations in
relation to the 16 – 17 year old rate, we propose instead that the
government invite us to review the operation of the 16 – 17 year old
rate in 2005 and report in February 2006 with recommendations for any
subsequent increase suitably adjusted to take account for the fact that
there will be no up-rating in this year.

Those then are the key
recommendations on the rates. In the summary of our recommendations at
the beginning of the report you will also see some other
recommendations related to detailed implementation and enforcement
issues. These encompass training scheme exemptions, salary sacrifice
schemes, what is called the accommodation off-set, the application of
minimum age rules to volunteer workers and issues relating to social
care funding.

So those are our recommendations to government.
They have been agreed unanimously by all nine members of the
Commission. They will result in over 1 million workers receiving a
further benefit from a higher minimum wage, but we are totally
confident that our cautious approach will ensure that this benefit is
achieved without having any detrimental effects either on inflation
prospects, or on the employment prospects of low paid workers.

Thank you very much and I will now hand over to Patricia Hewitt to I think talk about the government’s response.

Adair,
thank you very much indeed. As the Prime Minister said, our minimum
wage has already made a huge difference to the lives of millions of
people in low paid families. Year on year increases have seen pay
packets increase by about a fifth. And today’s announcement that we
have accepted the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission will deliver
a guaranteed pay rise to over \xA35 an hour for around 1.3 million low
paid workers later this year, rising to 1.4 million next year. And we
have done that, contrary to all the predictions that were made 7 or 8
years ago that a national minimum wage would cost perhaps a million
jobs, we have succeeded in installing and then increasing the minimum
wage at a time when employment has increased by over 2 million jobs
since 1997. The claimant count is below 1 million for the first time
since December 1975 and unemployment is at its lowest since June 1975.

As
Adair has indicated, some employers have raised concerns about the
impact of the last two increases in the national minimum wage, and we
were reassured by the very detailed scrutiny that the Commission gave
to this point. They found no evidence at all that the minimum wage has
damaged employment levels in any of the low paying sectors, in fact
they found that employment was stable or growing in almost all of them.
And we are therefore confident that we can accept their recommendation
on the increase in the rates without damaging the employment prospects
of low paid workers. In other words, through the national minimum
wage and through these new increases in the minimum wage we are
achieving the two objectives we set ourselves in 1997 – social justice
and a stronger economy, and we are able to do that in the context of
the national minimum wage because we are working in partnership. We set
up the Low Pay Commission, we brought together employers, and through
their trade unions employees, including of course the CBI and the TUC,
as well as independent members, to look independently at what was
happening within the labour market, to look at what could be afforded
in the national minimum wage. And I want to thank Adair Turner and his
colleagues for the way in which they have gone about their task.

Let
me just stress two points about today’s announcement. Firstly, about
two out of three of those benefiting from Labour’s minimum wage are
women, they are women often working long hours in cleaning, catering,
retail, hospitality, hairdressing, many other professions, all of whom
will benefit from today’s announcement. Women have always been
the majority of low paid workers, they have been the majority, and will
continue to be the majority of those helped by the national minimum
wage, but what the minimum wage has also done is very substantially to
reduce the gender pay gap for lower paid workers. And on top of that of
course, with the working tax credit, the child tax credit, with other
benefits on top of the minimum wage, we can now guarantee a minimum
income of at least \xA3252 a week for a family with one child and one
earner in full time work. For many of course it is still a real
struggle to make ends meet, but we have created a minimum level below
which no family will fall and which, as the Prime Minister indicated,
is an enormous improvement on where things were 8, 9, 10 years ago.

Secondly
let me mention enforcement. We take this enormously seriously. It
is essential to have the minimum wage and to set it at the right level,
but equally we have to make sure that workers, all workers, are
actually receiving the money that they are due. Now I am delighted to
say that the vast majority of employers pay the national minimum wage
without quibble, but there is still a small minority who do not, and
since April 1999 our enforcement teams, through the Inland Revenue,
have completed more than 33,000 investigations, they have identified
almost \xA320 million in arrears of the minimum wage and they have
returned that money to around 40,000 low paid workers. Now I want
to look now at what more we can do to tackle this problem of the small
minority of difficult employers. Now I intend that we will take a
more aggressive approach in the way that we use enforcement and penalty
notices, including using the power to prosecute that very small number
of employers who persist in refusing to pay the minimum wage. We are
also looking at more targeted enforcement, concentrating obviously on
the key low paying sectors, and I will give further details about both
of those areas shortly.

If we do have the opportunity of a third
term, we need and we want to continue to deliver more jobs for British
families, but also better jobs and the national minimum wage and
today’s announcement of increases this year and next year is central to
that task.

Question and answer session

Prime Minister, the government has indicated that it is prepared to make some concessions over the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. Are you prepared now to concede the principle that it should be a judge, and not a politician, that should be able to detain somebody in their own home?

Well we look the whole time at what the best way of approaching this is, and you have to recall that it is already, as I was saying the other day in the House of Commons, it is already the case that the judge will become involved, maximum within 7 days of the Home Secretary’s decision, and it is likely to be in the vast majority of cases far more quickly than that. So you are actually talking about a relatively small point. The fundamental point is whether you have these control orders at all, because the Conservatives are opposed to them at all, and those control orders are absolutely necessary so that you are not left with a situation where you could have somebody that you don’t have enough evidence to prosecute beyond reasonable doubt for a terrorist offence, but who nonetheless the security services believe on reasonable grounds is someone who is plotting to commit a terrorist act. And also just let me make this point too, it is very important that people talk about this coming up in the context of any potential election, the only reason we are doing this now is because of the court judgment, if the court judgment had gone the other way, and the Court of Appeal judgment had been upheld we would not be discussing it now. But we do have to make sure that we can replace the existing provisions, those having been declared incompatible with human rights law with the House of Lords.

If there is such a threat and you are taking these new powers, or you could use existing powers as you admitted in Prime Minister’s Question Time this week, why are you going to release the Belmarsh detainees anyway?

Well we have to take advice as to what potential restrictions can be placed upon people, but I think the view of the security services now is that some years on from September 11, and now that we know more about the types of people and the types of activities that we are engaged in, then these orders do give us the necessary restrictions on people without the full power of detention, although of course we fought the case to win in the House of Lords, but it is important that we take account of that judgment.

Yes, but are you actually considering though putting a judge more in control than they are at the moment, which is what the Liberal Democrats want, which is what a lot of back benchers on your own side want.

Charles Clarke is, as you know, he is having discussions with our back benchers, other political parties, to see how, I mean we want to do this on the broadest possible basis of consent, that is true. But it is important to emphasise that we were never going to take the judge out of this, on the contrary the judge would have had to have certified any executive order made by the Home Secretary. So you can debate that, and I think that debate is continuing. The central point, I repeat, is whether you have such control orders at all, and there will be a small number of people that we don’t actually have the sufficient evidence to prosecute them and arrest them for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, but who nonetheless are a real threat and whose activities the security services want to interrupt, and we have got to be vigilant about that.

You talked this week, Prime Minister, about thousands of people still being at risk from a potential terrorist attack. Do you not think in the light of the absence of WMD in Iraq there is a danger that the general public will feel that you might be crying wolf again?

I cannot believe that any member of the public who has seen what has happened in Madrid, who knows that every security service around Europe, whether the country was in favour of Iraq or against the Iraq war, believes and knows that they have an active terrorist threat. I can’t believe that anyone seriously doubts that we have such a terrorist threat in this country. Now as a result of the work that our services have done we have managed to contain that threat at the moment. As the Chief Police Officer who is actually in charge of the ACPO Committee on Terrorism said the other day, it is not inevitable that the terrorists succeed but it is inevitable that they try. Now I think most people understand that there is a real and active threat, and what I was saying in the House of Commons the other day was very simple, if Heaven forbid the terrorists did commit some atrocity in this country, the only issue that people will be asking is why didn’t you do more to prevent it. That is the question that someone in my position would be asked, and the security services would be asked, and that is why you have got to take a responsible position on this, and I think it is a responsible position to say that we will take account of the House of Lords judgment, we will change the law and order to take account of that, but it if the security services are saying to us, and the police, and they are both saying it to us strongly, emphatically, we need something that is between mere surveillance of a terrorist suspect and full prosecution, we need something in-between to allow us to disrupt their planning and activity. If the police and the security services say that to me as Prime Minister, you tell me what should any Prime Minister in those circumstances do. The answer is they should act on it, and that is what I am doing. So I think most people when they reflect on it will realise that of course there is a terrorist threat and our response is a proportionate one and a sensible one.

Prime Minister, just to try and nail this down, are you still then open to the principle of a judge making that initial decision, is that still a part of the discussions that have been going on, or are you insisting on the principle that it must be the Home Secretary?

Well what I am really saying to you is that I don’t think that is the point of principle because we are going to involve the judge in any event. Now what we have got to do, as I said in the House of Commons the other day, you know part of this discussion is also to see what is it that you might lose if you went for a judge deciding it first, would you lose some of the effectiveness of the provision? Now that is something that we have to look at, but all I am saying to you is, because I can’t at the present time give you a definitive answer because there are all sorts of considerations you have to look at, but the heart of this though is making sure we have the control orders. But how fast we bring the judge in, how fast we get judicial scrutiny, and as I say even under the existing proposal it has got to happen in a maximum of 7 days, depends on issues to do with the efficacy as well as the other things.

You know I haven’t moved on this further since Wednesday, to be absolutely frank about it, so don’t over-interpret me. I know that is never what you guys do, but just in case you might.

Prime Minister, Michael Mates this morning, who is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, a member of the Butler Inquiry, has added his voice to those calling for the evidence, or the opinion of the Attorney General on the Iraq war to be made public, and appears to cast some doubt on whether we have been told properly what that advice was. As the government have already broken the precedent by publishing the legal advice on the Royal wedding, why don’t you now publish that and clear this up once and for all, otherwise there appears to be a question mark over the legality of the war, which won’t go away.

First of all, we haven’t broken the precedent, and secondly Peter Goldsmith has made a statement and I have got absolutely nothing to add to it.

Can I ask, would you describe the parliamentary answer that the Attorney General gave on 17 March 2003 as a fair summary of his formal written legal opinion?

Well again I have got nothing to add to what the Attorney General said. He has been over these questions literally scores of times and the position, Gary, has not changed. I know you guys will want to go back into it, and back into it, and back into it.

Yes he has dealt with it time, and time, and time again. Now I know that some people will not agree, and they are never going to agree about this, but I am sorry there is no point in thinking if …

You suggested in the Commons the other day that if IRA terrorism is no longer a thing of the past, it is nonetheless dwarfed by the greater terrorist threat that you face internationally. That raised some eyebrows. A major opinion poll in today’s Irish Independent suggests that two thirds of Irish people now believe that the IRA and Sinn Fein are synonymous, that they do not maintain the distinction, they have no confidence that Sinn Fein will push for that last final crucial step by the IRA to decommissioning. In the light of that there is also a growing apprehension that because of your investment, and because of the Taoiseach’s investment in the peace process today that you might find yourself boxed into waiting for the next best offer from the IRA, rather than re-starting the process. Can you actually address those apprehensions?

Well I think that indicates the degree to which opinion has shifted on this. And look the reason we are stuck in this impasse, and have been now since the Acts of Completion speech in October 2002 is because we have been unable to get not just the right form of words, but the right commitment and follow through on action from the IRA, and this has now got to happen, it is the only way to move this situation forward. You are in a better position to judge than me, but I think the overwhelming view now on the whole of the island of Ireland, in other words north and south, is that there cannot be a place for Sinn Fein in an inclusive government in Northern Ireland unless there is a complete and total end to all forms of paramilitary or criminal activity by the IRA, and that is after all what the Good Friday agreement said, and so we are only asking for what was originally agreed. And yes you are right, the Taoiseach and I have invested an awful lot in this, and will continue to do so, but there is no question of us breaching that fundamental principle, on the contrary both myself and the Taoiseach have repeated it over the last few weeks, it is absolute for us, there can’t be any other way of doing it. Even if we were to breach it ourselves incidentally, the other political parties wouldn’t. And I think what is interesting is that in the Republic now, I think that is also the similar feeling amongst the political parties there, and so you have a situation, and I think this in a sense is one of the benefits of the peace process, where you have exposed what now is the heart of this thing. If the IRA do give up paramilitary and criminal activity in the way that we have described, in the way that the Good Friday agreement dictates, if they do then of course there must be an inclusive government in Northern Ireland, but it can’t happen on any other basis.

Well we have got to make a judgment about that. We can’t wait for ever, that is for sure.

Prime Minister, your conference on Tuesday for the Palestinian Authority, is there a danger that the speed of events in the Middle East has rather overtaken this, that it might become just an exercise in political showmanship? What do you hope to get out of it in practical terms, and aren’t there limitations on what you can achieve without the presence of the Israelis?

Well once again, to repeat, it never was envisaged that the Israelis would attend this conference, we are not at that stage yet. But the conference is going to be extremely important in setting out in a clear way that can then be agreed by the whole international community what we mean by an independent viable Palestinian state in terms of its structures, what are the political, the economic, the security structures that are necessary, and that is going to be very important because yes we have had a lot of renewed hope and optimism in the Middle East, and that is great and I have paid tribute to both sides for that progress, but no-one should be in any doubt at all, this is only the beginnings of renewal, we are a long way off this peace process getting back into the road map, back into negotiations that can lead to a final settlement of it, and agreeing how we can support the Palestinians in their desire to achieve proper security structures, economic transparency, the right political institutions, based on democracy, that is a very, very important part of this. So I can assure you that those people who have been intimately concerned with this peace process do not see this as simply a piece of grand-standing or a photo opportunity, far from it. Anybody intimately involved with this process knows that this is absolutely fundamental to getting it right.

Prime Minister, could I raise the subject of the courts martial which have been taking place this week and the abuse of prisoners in Iraq. In your view is this a few bad apples or is it a general breakdown of training of men in the British Army who are giving the rest of the British Army such a bad reputation. And also could you say why it is the authorities were not able to track down some of the victims of this abuse, but the Independent was able to track them down in 48 hours?

Well I can’t comment on the last point, I just don’t know the details of it Colin. But I can say to you, you said the reputation of the British troops, the reputation of the British Armed Forces is as good as the reputation of any Armed Forces in the world, if not better, and they do a fantastic magnificent job, and the vast majority of them do that and have done that in Iraq and we can be really proud of them. And I don’t want to comment on the individual cases because that would be wrong, but I am sure that the vast majority of British soldiers have behaved properly throughout.

Well part of the training is precisely to do that, and that is one of the reasons why, look the best test of this is when you talk to other countries who may be going into various peace keeping operations around the world, which troops do they want to be alongside – the British – and that is for a very good reason because the British actually are immensely skilled at doing this and train well.

Prime Minister, I am just wondering today whether you would like to elaborate on some of the advice you may have given the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles on their forthcoming nuptials. And given that you did play such a key role in advising the couple, are you prepared to take any responsibility for the somewhat shambolic handling of the arrangements?

Well you asked me whether I wanted to add anything, and the answer is no. I think we have stated all we want to state on that really.

You said we will keep coming back to this, and you are right. On Lord Goldsmith, isn’t there a danger that as long as you remain silent on the issue that the whole credibility of the system for providing legal advice to the government appears to be eroding and fast deteriorating?

No, and we haven’t remained silent, we have stated the position on numerous occasions, it is just that people for various reasons are reluctant to accept it.

On Darfur, latest estimates are about 2 million people facing starvation, the UN say their staff and other relief workers are being harassed. I know that you have put a lot of faith in the Africa Union, that you have been meeting with people like Paul Martin to discuss this, but none of it is working evidently. Is the crisis in Darfur continuing because the world can’t help or because the world won’t help?

The world is trying to help, but the help that is most needed is the intervention of the Africa Union Force, and that is the key requirement. And in fact the Commission for Africa report when it comes out, I think you will see that there is an entire chapter devoted to how we build this capability for Africa, because that is the only answer in Darfur. The only answer is to make sure that you have sufficiently capable troops to go and police the situation whilst you negotiate the settlement, and that is what we are trying to do.

You have talked about progress on social justice, but in the last few weeks we have had very stark evidence of a rise in binge drinking, teenage pregnancies, a breakdown in school discipline, a rise in alcohol-related crime. How alarmed are you about the social decay that these pictures represent?

Well I thought overall they were down. Look, the issue of binge drinking is a problem and that is why we are introducing new powers for the police. They have got substantial powers now. But I continue to think, it is like the discipline issue in schools, yes it is true that there is, with a very small minority of children. The vast majority of schools are doing a good job in terms of behaviour with their children, but there are problems there, and one of the things I want to make absolutely clear is that the schools, if they need more powers, we will give them more powers, and so far as parents are concerned, because there is a limit to what I can do as government to effect this, so far as parents are concerned I would like to say that in my view the job of parents is to back the school up in the discipline of children, not go in and abuse the teachers for disciplining the kids, or take the side of the kids against the teachers. When I was young, if you got into trouble at school you got into trouble at home, and that in my view is the way it should be – somewhat old fashioned, but there it is.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw indicated a few days ago that he believed Syria may well have had some involvement in the assassination of the former Lebanese Premier, Rafik Hariri. If that is shown to be the case, and you may have some more information than a few days ago, what action is going to be taken against Syria, what is going to be done about Hezbollah because Hezbollah is now seen to be a very major threat to the regional stability? And just coming on again to next week’s conference on the Palestinians, are there any safeguards that can be built in so that should something go wrong in the next few weeks that both sides can be assured that the international community will be able to prop up the peace process. We have seen the problems in Northern Ireland where things can go very rapidly downhill, and people are still worried in the region, there is a lack of confidence on both sides.

Well you are absolutely right Jerry, which is why it is so important that this conference takes place, because you have got to build into it a mechanism for dealing with the issues of security in a way that gives confidence to both sides, and if you don’t have that then there is always a danger that someone extreme, a suicide bomber or somebody engaged in an act of terrorism, can throw the whole thing backwards. In respect of Syria, what Jack was saying is what all of us would say, which is that you hear these reports. I don’t know of anything and I have got nothing to give you by way of fact on it because I don’t have the facts on it. What I can say is that it was a terrible act of terrorism, a terrible assassination, a tragedy for the Lebanon, and Syria should take very seriously their responsibilities to curb terrorism of all sorts. And states that sponsor terrorism do a huge disservice not only to the countries in which they sponsor that terrorism, but also to their own country.

Can I ask you whether you would be willing to wipe somebody’s bottom for the amount of money you are providing on this improved minimum wage? And secondly, on control orders …

On a higher plane, you say on control orders the issue is whether you get them or not, isn’t the issue about how they are brought about and your concern is that they are achieved quickly. And if you look at the debates that have been had in the House in the last few days a lot of MPs have said you would achieve a quick detainment through ex-party interim application by the Home Secretary to a judge, and that is important because then you maintain the separation of powers and the decision is actually initially made by a judge. Don’t you achieve what you want and maintain our constitutional history?

Of course these are all the things that we are looking at there, that is obviously right. Although you have got to remember that people can be detained for 14 days now, and so sometimes when people talk about this as if we are introducing something utterly unknown to the British legal system.

But the point that I am making to you quite simply is that you can detain someone now before it comes before a court. Remember under our proposals you have got to bring it before the judge within the seven days, the likelihood is that it will be far quicker than that. But in any event, I am not actually disputing the point that it is precisely those things, as I said on Wednesday, that we look at. That is not the key question though, the key question is whether you have these control order powers at all. As for the issue of the minimum wage, well that actually wouldn’t be a nurse of course that was on £5 an hour, but there would be healthcare assistants who would be on the minimum wage, but thank goodness we have got the minimum wage, and we have got the children’s tax credit, and we have got the other means of helping make work pay, and the minimum wage is an important part now of an economy that doesn’t depend on poverty pay and jobs where people at least get some sort of recognition and dignity, even though of course it is still lower than we would like to see, but it is a darned sight higher than some of the poverty pay we used to see.

… but this issue as to whether the minimum wage is adequate to live on is one that is often put to us with some people saying well why don’t you work out what is required to prevent poverty and set the rate at that level. We believe that we should be seen as playing a role which is in combination with other aspects of government policy, in particular the tax credit and benefit system. And if you look at the combined impact of the minimum wage and the tax credit and benefit system, the effective hourly rate that people get, for instance a family with one child and one earner, they are effectively getting an hourly rate of about £7.37 per hour, which is considerably higher than £5. Now the reason why we don’t set the minimum wage at £7.40 per hour is that we would be concerned that if we did do that we would create unemployment and we would undermine employment prospects. So we are trying to take the minimum wage up to a level which makes a significant contribution to avoiding low levels of income, being sure that we are doing that however without creating a detrimental effect on employment, and the impact on poverty is that plus the impact of the tax and benefit system, and I think you have to see the policies as a combined whole.

Prime Minister, are you shocked, horrified, surprised, apologetic about the doubling of the rate of MRSA in the last few years?

In respect of MRSA, I just want to say a few things about that. First of all, let me make it quite clear that it is unacceptable for anyone to die avoidably from a hospital acquired infection, that is the first thing to state. The second thing however is to put it in context, and that is not to diminish, I mean if you have lost a loved one as a result of this this is no consolation to you, but it is just important that we do put this in context. There are 11 million people that go in and out of our hospitals every year. The figures, the 900 cases a year, actually of those I think it is 321 as the Chief Nursing Officer was saying have probably died directly as a result of MRSA. If you look at the hospital acquired infection figures, that is for all hospital acquired infections, actually they are not different from many other European countries. And the next point to make is this, that it is important we find out why these particular infections have become resistant to the antibiotics with which they are being treated, and it is also important that we introduce the measures on cleanliness that we are doing. But there is something else that we should talk about today, given the report on cancer patients. Today in 2005 there are 25,000 a year fewer deaths from heart disease, there have been since 1997 33,000 fewer deaths from cancer, today’s figures on screening for breast cancer indicate now there are 11,000, a significant increase, of people whose breast cancer has been detected and therefore being able to be treated at an early stage through this screening programme. Now all I say to people about MRSA is not to diminish its significance, but to put it in context and then to say there are fantastic things also happening in our National Health Service of which we can be proud. And I think otherwise what we end up doing is giving people I think somewhat of an unbalanced perspective as to the pluses and minuses of today’s National Health Service.

What was the most trouble that you got in at school that led you to be getting in trouble at home?

That is a very good question. No, we are not answering that one, but you know what I mean John.

On Europe you have not commented on the results of the Spanish referendum. Given the fact that Spain is one of the big sort of European cheerleaders, we had the lowest participation in all of our young democracy in the last 30 years. How do you interpret this disappointing result for your own referendum here next year? And also related to this question, it is being said around Europe more and more that your calculation is that you are hoping that France or Poland will say no to the European constitution so that the European constitution will not be able to be implemented.

Well it would be very foolish if I took that view, and I don’t anticipate that happening at all. At some point this country is going to have to make up its mind on the European constitutional treaty and decide whether we want to be part of the new Europe that is being created, or not, and that is a decision the country will take and I am not betting on anyone saying no to it, I think that would be a very mis-guided thing to do. As for the turnout in the Spanish referendum, what was the overall percentage vote in favour?

Yes, well you might find some explanation in that. I suspect actually here it will be a slightly more keenly fought battle, do you think, or not?

On the control orders, this morning we have got the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights preliminary report, and they say two things I can see, the Home Secretary’s reason for refusing to countenance prior judicial authorisation amounts to in their view an eccentric interpretation of the constitutional arrangements, the separation of powers; and secondly they say there is no justification for rushing through this legislation now without proper scrutiny when you don’t intend to use the full range of powers that you are taking for yourself. What would you say to that?

I don’t think there is a lack of proper scrutiny. There is the issue, and we have been over it many times today, the only thing I would just urge people to bear in mind on this is that we do in fact face a terrorist threat, the security services and the police do believe we need these extra powers, and I am not being arrogant or rail-roading these things through, I am just trying to protect the security of our country. And if there were to be a terrorist act, people would be asking me why I hadn’t protected the civil liberties of our citizens, because they have a right to life, it is also a human right.

According to the Israeli daily newspaper … the Israeli government is planning to build more than 6,000 new homes in the West Bank and to legitimise 120 illegal outposts. Prime Minister, do you think that this can help the good efforts you are building to resume the peace process?

Well I don’t actually know about those reports, so I probably shouldn’t comment on them, except obviously just to re-state the general principle of our position on settlements, which has been as you know to oppose the illegal extension of settlements, but I don’t know about the actual report.

I think the important thing about the minimum wage is that the minimum wage is a symbol of the fact that you can actually combine a strong economy, strong economic growth, low inflation and interest rates, with rising employment and fairness. In other words, the old choice that you had to choose between economic efficiency and social justice no longer applies, you can in fact have both and what is more in a modern economy it is better to compete on the basis of skill, and talent, and ability, not on the basis of low wages.

3 Comments »

Humm … badly briefed .. again

Teenage pregnancies rose from 41868 to 42173
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4293641.stm
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 25 Feb 2005 on 7:15 pm | Link
The number has gone up, but so has the population, so you would expect the number to go up. The incidence rate has fallen.

When the PM says "I thought the teenage pregnancy figures were down" he’s right.

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4293641.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4293641.stm</a>

"Although the absolute number of teenage pregnancies has gone up across England and Wales, the rate – which is the number of pregnancies per 1,000 teenage girls – has actually gone down in England from 42.6 to 42.1."
Comment by Square Peg — 26 Feb 2005 on 1:34 pm | Link
Well it is really wonderful to hear this prime minister talking about a minimum wage ,how wonderful he and new labour are(as ever).A millionaire pontificating about the wisdom and generosity of his corrupt and sleazy government.
What he won’t talk about are people living in poverty on benefits.Oh he never ceases to remind us about benefit fraud.It is the only benefits topic he and in fact the media are willing to discuss. He will mention what his government have done for pensioners though.Let’s not forget the pensioner’s vote and that they have a powerful lobby is the thinking behind that.
People living on other benefits,especially those on disability benefits are a continual target for Blair,and have been since he came to power.
Claiments have an extremely difficult time trying to get the benefits,and even people with Consultant’s reports detailing life threatening illness,poor life expectancy etc.,are rejected by the DLA and Incapacity benefit decision makers.This is common practise.That this oppression is instigated and sustained by a self professed Christian is more disturbing than ever.Blair is on record as saying he bases his socialism on Christianity.However if you try to querry his policies as to whether they square with his profession of faith in Christ we are told by his spin doctors,"we don’t do God".
For years benefit claiments,particularly the sick and disabled have had no political party to stand up for them.This is still the case.
We all know benefit fraud exists and that it is wrong;but fraud extends to many areas other than the benefits system.
It is evil and wrong that a group of voiceless and defenceless unrepresented people(benefit claimants) should be singled out to be the special target of draconian and uncaring policies from Blair’s hypocritical government.
If we want to talk about fraud the whole invasion and occupation of Iraq has been sustained by fraud,and how much money has this cost the taxpayer?
Comment by lazarus issass — 22 Mar 2005 on 11:43 pm | Link

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.

» Friday, February 25, 2005

Prime Minister’s Press Conference

The Prime Minister’s opening statement

Question and answer session

3 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries