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.]

Prime Minister’s opening statement:

Good Morning everyone. And first of all let me apologise, I gather there has been some new system put in place this morning for signing in, or something through the Data Protection Act, anyway I am sorry about that, it has caused the delay.

Right, I am going to talk to you about identity cards, because the Bill will have its second reading in the House of Commons. I am confident we can get the Bill on the statute book, and I am also confident that in principle we have public support for this measure. People recognise the benefits of a scheme that will allow us to tackle identity fraud more effectively, bear down on illegal working, illegal immigration, abuse of our public services and help in the fight against organised crime and terrorism, and these are all strong arguments for moving forward with identity cards.

However, there is in addition, and this is what I want to focus some time on, a very compelling and unique argument in favour of this as a result of the changes both in technology and then consequential changes in practice right round the world, and this is I think the most important part of answering the Question, well why now are we saying it is important to introduce this measure? There is now the technology to move to a biometric passport, that is a document with fingerprint and facial recognition of the holder, and to move to that biometric passport will require an interview and then obviously getting the facial and fingerprint biometrics.

In a time also of intense global insecurity, there is now an unstoppable political momentum across the developed world for countries to use the opportunity of the new technology to make their borders more secure. That is why in May 2003 the International Civil Aviation Organisation said that facial biometrics should become standard practice in the 188 countries that belong to the ICA. All G8 member states, for example, are now committed to issuing biometric passports, all have programmes in place to issue biometric passports, and most will have done so by 2006. Australia and New Zealand will issue biometric passports this year, Canada will start next year. The USA passed legislation, post-9/11 that countries whose citizens do not currently need visas to holiday in the States must begin issuing biometric passports by the end of October 2006, or risk facing visa restrictions. And nearly 4 million UK citizens, as you know, visit the US every year and obviously we don’t want them to have to have the inconvenience of what is a £60 tourist visa every time they holiday in the US. The European Union has also agreed that member states’ passports should start containing facial biometrics from mid-2006 and fingerprints from 2008, and that visas and residents permits for non-EU nationals should also be issued with biometrics.

So the impact of all this – and this is the essential first step in this argument – is that we are going to be in a position where we have to make our passports here in the UK biometric if UK citizens are to continue to enjoy the right to travel freely around the world, and equally we need other countries to move ahead with biometrics if we are to have the most modern border controls here in Britain. And as we tighten our immigration and asylum controls we will have an electronic border system that will allow computerised embarkation checks from 2008.

In short, as we start issuing biometric passports for the first time, we will develop a sophisticated identity register. 80% of the population have passports which will all need replacing over the next 10 years. Now the whole point about this is that it is for a relatively small additional cost to the biometric cost, and the additional cost is estimated at under £30, not £300, never mind £100 – under £30 – for that small additional cost we can build on the biometric passport and incorporate into that an identity card which gives us all the benefits that we know we need for identity checks in the modern world.

So the next few years are going to see therefore effectively a visa and passport revolution across the European Union and developed world, we have the chance to use this opportunity to get ahead in this change, and the move therefore to biometric passports makes identity cards an idea whose time has come.

So I just wanted to set out, before answering Questions on this issue, for you just what is the background and the context which has led us to the decision that now it is right to move forward and get these biometric identity cards in place.

Question and answer session:

On a related migration Question, Prime Minister, isn’t it now essential to have a general suspension of deportations back to Zimbabwe?

Let me answer this first of all by saying that we abhor what is happening in Zimbabwe today, everything we have said about the Mugabe regime has been shown to be true. The Question of how we respond to deportations is however a difficult one, and I just want to explain why it is difficult for us. We have taken steps over the past few years to get asylum numbers down dramatically. They are now running at round about 2,000 asylum claims a month, that is actually below the figures we inherited in 1997. For the first time we are getting the system of applications under control. These claims from Zimbabwe are all claims that have been processed and found to be false, or wrong, or unjustified. Genuine asylum seekers, or people whose claims are upheld from Zimbabwe, will continue to get asylum here. If we introduce a generalised moratorium in respect of Zimbabwe, instead of assessing each case on a case by case basis, our real fear is that we will re-open the system to the abuse we have been shutting down. Now obviously over the next few days we are going to look, and the Home Office is going to look very carefully at these cases from Zimbabwe, and look, none of us wants to have a situation where we are returning people to torture or ill-treatment, and that is why it is important to emphasise that all of these are cases whose claims have been looked into and turned down. But if we engage in a generalised moratorium, our fear is that we would literally be back in the situation we were two or three years ago, where people were hammering us for not getting the asylum system under control and people were sometimes coming in from Zimbabwe, or claiming to be from Zimbabwe and turning out to be from somewhere else. So we just need to be very, very careful on this, but we are looking at it and I know Charles Clarke I think will make a statement later today in the House of Commons, and so I hope he will be able to answer some of these Questions. But what we are trying to do is to get the balance right between obviously protecting people from torture or abuse in what is an appalling Mugabe regime, but not ending up in a situation where we just reopen all the problems we have had in our asylum system. And this is a system incidentally, sorry just to conclude the point, which is incredibly sensitive to signals that you send.

I wonder if you could just explain a little bit more of the logic of your opening statement on ID cards, because it seems to me one could accept everything you said about passports, and still not see the connection to why you would need to change that system into ID cards, even if you accepted the deadlines which you said, which I think you would agree on technology and costs are already slipping, for example the American deadline has already slipped, hasn’t it? But if people want to travel, if people want to cross borders, there are going to be systems in place, and really they haven’t got any choice about that, but why then go the extra step and have essentially an internal ID card system?

No, well I think that is exactly the point. Look, where do I think people are, and let me just explain something, you know people sometimes describe this as a flagship programme of the government. I don’t regard this as a party political issue, any government in power would have to look at this issue again, because of the changes that have happened, and actually the last government, before biometric technology, looked at it. The issue is this, if you could get a more secure identity system there is no doubt it would save large sums of money and open up new opportunities for people, because there is identity fraud that impacts on social security, use of public services, illegal immigration, illegal working and so on. The lack of proper identity means that for example in the use of the Health Service and other services it can be more difficult to access those services because you don’t have a secure identity, if you could do this it would be right to do. The Question is, you know is the cost going to be disproportionate, and I think it is not so much on civil liberty grounds, but is it a real benefit to add this in.

Well this is the point, but my point is this, if you take – this would be a biometric passport, where the chip here is the information it has got at the moment, facial imaging, will add fingerprint biometrics and in the end could have the iris scan in it as well. Now essentially, because everywhere else around the world is doing this, we are going to have to reissue passports which are this type of passport, with biometric technology. Now the point is that for a small additional cost, as I say under £30, not these wild figures that have been talked about, we are going to be able to give ourselves an identity card that then has these other benefits internally.

Yes, but as you build up over time, then you are able to use this as a basis for people making the enquiries as to identity and people will find it is a lot easier to gain access. Just to give you another example, for the Criminal Records Bureau, which after all hundreds of thousands of people have to go through the whole time, it takes something like four weeks to do an identity check, it would take three days with an identity card. Now all I say to people at the moment is keep an open mind on this, right. We are introducing tomorrow what is essentially enabling legislation, it enables us to go out and get the details of procurement and the precise way we could do this would be, it allows us to establish the foundation for the system. There is plenty of time for this debate to develop, all I am trying to say to people is understand why the government is thinking of this at the moment, it is not because I have just decided to give myself another political headache, it is because there is biometric technology which is new secure identity technology, we are going to have to fork out for the passports in any event, so isn’t it sensible for a small additional cost, and it is small, on present estimates as I say under £30, to go the whole hog and have an identity card that we can build up over time to a secure way of transacting business in the UK.

Prime Minister, you say a proportionate cost, but why should anyone who doesn’t have a passport have to fork out something like £100 for an identity card, and if it becomes compulsory, isn’t it effectively a back door tax?

There has got to be a vote before it becomes compulsory for everybody. For the passport holders, you are renewing your passport and you are getting the identity card with it. But we are talking about this several years down the line, but you see I think people in the country think identity cards are in principle a good idea, but obviously if they are reading in the media it is going to cost you £300, well not surprisingly they are saying well that is a bit steep.

The benefit that you get as an individual is that you are able to access services, you are able to get around more easily, for example at the moment if you want to get your medical records online, you can’t because of the worries over identity. You would be able to do that. There are a lot of private sector operations that people do as part of their daily lives, with secure identity would be easy. You know I can’t tell exactly how this will develop in time to come, but people are already looking at, for example, whether it is not possible to get some of the information you need for your driving licence and this type of thing by use of the identity card. Other countries now are looking not just at the biometric passport, but I think other countries who have got identity cards are going to be switching into this biometric technology. So all I am saying to people is look, keep an open mind at the moment, some of these figures bandied around about cost are absolutely absurd, I mean no government is going to start introducing something that is going to cost hundreds of pounds for people, that would be ridiculous. But there are genuine good reasons for doing this now, because of the change of technology, the fact that we will all have to pay for the biometric passport, and the identity card part of it is a very small additional cost. And the only thing I would say to you is look, some things in government you raise because you believe in them as a matter of conviction, you know Health Service reform, or education reform, or the minimum wage, that is the politics of conviction, but this is simply a measure that I think it is responsible for us to introduce as a government. But let the debate continue, and I think people when they see it, and particularly when they get behind some of the sort of headline things about the figures, I think that people will understand that their original instinct, which is yes it is sensible in today’s world to have secure forms of identity, will be proved right.

Prime Minister, can you just respond if possible to the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, who this morning described the information that will be required of people to provide for identity cards as "unwarranted, intrusive and excessively disproportionate"? And secondly if I may on a completely different subject, when did the government first consider placing Railtrack into administration?

I think on the second part, since it is subject to a court case, I won’t comment. In respect of the first part, well I just hope he studies what will be happening. When you go along to get your passport in the future, the biometric passport, there will be certain information requested of you, you will have to give facial imaging and finger prints. Is that OK or is this the part where I am cast in dark shadow to answer this particular Question? So a lot of this information is there in any event. I don’t think the public’s problem with this at all is going to be identity cards, most people carry forms of identity around with them, it is really to do with the issue of cost and I think that is what will concern people. And I would just point out that some of those people who are now campaigning on grounds of cost, you know they are actually people who are in fact opposed to identity cards on civil liberties grounds, and I think that is a pretty minority view actually of the public.

Going back to Zimbabwe, how can you at G8 really claim to be doing something about Africa if you are not seen to be doing something about what is happening in Zimbabwe? And if I may, just keeping up to the end the tradition of asking you two Questions …

No, no, a domestic Question. There is a very interesting report this morning from the Kings Fund on the problems of looking after the infirm and the elderly at home, saying the situation is pretty chaotic and there is the threat of a time bomb in terms of care provision, and I just wonder what long term you are going to do about that?

Well long term we are trying to move to a system that is a lot more flexible, where people will sometimes get the money to decide how they are then going to use that for their own care.

Well I actually think that if we opened the system up a little more, because there are a lot of people there in the voluntary sector who do a fantastic job, and I think if we had a more flexible system it would be easier to deal with some of these problems. On the other hand though it costs an awful lot of money, and there are pressures already on the social care budget. But I know we are looking at this in the context of the Health Service reform package, and there is no doubt at all that for people who are looking after elderly relatives it is a huge strain on them, and the amount of help that they get from government is necessarily limited, although we have increased it substantially.

On the first point, I agree, I think it is a real problem for us, and I think those of us who passionately believe in the cause of Africa despair of what is happening in Zimbabwe, not because that represents the whole of Africa, it doesn’t, but because it then allows people who say well why bother helping Africa to say well look at what is happening in Zimbabwe. Now the United Nations have appointed someone who was actually a Commissioner on the Commission for Africa to go down and report back to the UN and it will give the Security Council an opportunity to discuss Zimbabwe, and I think we should. Look, I feel very frustrated about the situation in Zimbabwe, I desperately want to do more. On the other hand, I know perfectly well that the only salvation for Zimbabwe will come from the countries surrounding Zimbabwe and within Zimbabwe itself, and obviously I yet again urge those countries surrounding Zimbabwe, and their leaders, to recognise that what is happening in Zimbabwe is a disgrace, it is nothing whatever to do with old colonial disputes with Britain, that is just a pathetic excuse from the Mugabe government, and as the situation in Zimbabwe deteriorates it damages the cause of Africa and that is deeply unfair to the millions of people in Africa who need and should have our help.

Taking into account what you have just said about Zimbabwe, why hasn’t it been referred to the UN Security Council?

Well I think we need the basis of making sure that the Security Council is both ready for the reference and it is going to be supported by other countries. One of the things that people have got to understand about this situation is that we in this country feel very passionately about Zimbabwe and have a very clear, I would say across the political spectrum uniform view of the rights and wrongs of it. Unfortunately that is not the case elsewhere in the world and there would be opposition to dealing with Zimbabwe and to dealing with the Mugabe regime. Now I think it is time that we, and this is why I welcome the appointment of as I say someone who was actually a Commissioner for the Commission for Africa, whom I know and is a decent person and will do a good job I think, but to report back on what is happening there, and we need then to mobilise international concern and support. But the problem we have at the moment, and remember we remain in close contact with the MDC over there, and incidentally the arrangements that we have for returning people to Zimbabwe, we have discussed through with the MDC, and I am not saying that may not shift if they give us new information, but it is something we have taken every care to get right. And what we do is we keep in close contact with them, not in the sense of telling them what to do about the internal politics of Zimbabwe, because we don’t, they are a sovereign organisation and they run their own business there, but in the sense of what can be done to mobilise international support we remain in contact with them.

Prime Minister, you say that this will be solved by the countries surrounding Zimbabwe, and you have been trying to put pressure on them, but doesn’t it completely undermine your case with them when you are prepared to have people sent back to that country, because isn’t the message that clearly it can’t be that bad because Britain is prepared to continue sending people back?

Absolutely not. You see what is essential, and I do hope some of this comes across in the reporting of it, the people that we send back to Zimbabwe are people whose claims have been investigated and found to be wrong, in other words they have been found to be, often by a court incidentally, not proper asylum claimants. Now even when their claims fail, we say we are not going to put you back, and the same could be made about people who claim from Iran, you know people who claim from different parts of the world where there are appalling regimes, if we end up in the circumstances we are saying we are not going to deport you back, then the worry from our point of view as policy makers is you will send a signal right across the system that Britain is again open for business on asylum claims that are not genuine. Now I have said that we will look into this very, very carefully, this country is a tolerant country and I wouldn’t want it on my conscience, apart from anything else, of sending people back to torture and abuse and so on, but we need to investigate this very, very carefully because otherwise we will be back to a situation where we are getting, as we were getting, literally every quarter you know a couple of thousand or more asylum claimants from Zimbabwe, some of whom turned out not to be from Zimbabwe, never mind unjustified claims. And we are worried, having really battened down the hatches on the asylum system and managed to get real progress so that the claims are now a quarter of what they were three years ago, we are worried about re-opening this. And we are also worried about the point of principle that if we say in respect of Zimbabwe we are not sending back even failed asylum claimants, what do we then do about other countries where the same type of claim can be made. And I am not saying I am unsympathetic to the points people are making, we are looking at it very closely, but it is difficult and I just want you to understand that from our perspective as policy makers that if we go down the path, it is very easy for people to issue a press release saying halt all deportations, but we have got to look at the impact of that further down the line.

If I could briefly come back to the topic of the European Union, given that probably the German government will change in September, do you envisage that it will be easier for Britain actually, and for you to work together with the likely future Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and what do you see specifically over the topic of Turkey, could that be an unbreachable gap between you and Merkel?

Well first of all it is for the German people to decide their government and we will work with whichever German government they elect, and I think as you will understand it would be foolish for me to say anything more than that. Secondly, in respect of Turkey, I think what is important is that we make it very clear that the criteria that the European Union have set out, and that apply to every member state, those criteria have to be obeyed in full, and that is that Turkey should not be discriminated against, neither should they be discriminated in favour. There are certain obligations we are requiring of them and those obligations have got to be fulfilled, but it is obviously something that is being discussed not simply in Germany but throughout the European Union, and I just think it is important, because sometimes I think people in Europe feel that we will kind of bend the criteria for political reasons, I think in the case of Turkey it is very important to emphasise that the criteria are absolute and must be met in full.

Can I stick to international matters, but go to the G8. On the G8 it seems that on one issue, debt relief and aid to Africa, real progress has been made; but on the other issue, climate change, so far we have no indication of any agreement. So how confident are you that you can bridge the positions ahead of the meeting, and would you consider a G8 in Gleneagles where there would be an agreement on debt relief, but no agreement on climate change as a success or a failure?

Well at the moment we are continuing to negotiate. There isn’t obviously a proper text yet because people are still discussing it, and we will just do our best. I think there is no point in raising or indeed dampening expectations before we get to the end part of the hard negotiating. I think that on Africa there is a real sense of coming together, climate change is obviously very difficult. But on the other hand I think it is incredibly important that we do get some clear agreement that we need to move to a low carbon economy, we need to curb greenhouse gas emissions and we need to do so urgently. Now I think that is extremely important, that is my own view about that, and we will wait and see whether we can get an agreement or not. And at least on these two issues France and the UK are working closely together.

Using the same standards that have been applied to Robert Mugabe, would Britain also firmly oppose Uganda’s President Museveni’s ambition to become a Presidential monarch? This is in consideration of the fact that the UK is a leading foreign donor of 52% of the donor funded budget of Uganda, and that Uganda is also currently ranked as among the top five most corrupt dictatorships, whose 40% of the population is now internally displaced?

Well as you know, we have made it very clear that we will not support any move away from constitutional government, and I hope that does not occur in Uganda. And one thing is for sure, that at the G8 in 10 days time it will be made very clear that the additional help available for Africa is contingent upon good governance and proper democratic norms, and it is the position of Britain and the position of the other countries at the G8 I am sure that that is the only basis upon which aid will be increased. So it is up to countries then to decide their future.

Prime Minister, which do you think is more likely – London pipping Paris at the post in Singapore, or the French negotiating a deal on the CAP?

I think we should remain very confident of the strength of our bid and then it is a matter for the IOC to determine. And one thing is for sure – this is actually the official tie of the Olympics, in case you are wondering why I am attired in such an elegant way this morning, unusually – you know we have got a strong bid, the bid team have done fantastically well and we have just to go and make our case, and that is what we will do. Honestly, do you really want to know about the CAP reforms, is that really a 20/12 Question? Obviously on CAP reform, I think it is just important to emphasise that nobody is suggesting this happens overnight, what we are suggesting is that the clear evidence is that today no country would be spending 40% of its budget supporting agriculture, and in the years to come, because this will take a process of change, it is essential that Europe escapes from a position where we are spending that much on the Common Agricultural Policy and not enough in areas to do with science, and research and development, universities and so on, which constitute the economic growth of the future. But we have never suggested that you could move away from this overnight. And I do once again draw attention to the Sapir report, done by Andre Sapir, who is a Belgian economist, but they had French and other nationalities working alongside with him, and who showed absolutely plainly how you could both change the budget and what you would change it to.

Prime Minister, we came in this morning and we were a quarter of an hour late starting, as you know, because in the security shed our names were taken and our dates of birth were taken, now we were told under the Prevention of Terrorism Act because we were being scrutinised, but you said it might have been something to do with the Data Protection Act, maybe they are getting together in some kind of legalistic alliance. The thing is it was a legalistic procedure with absolutely no operational significance, and it had a small but significant impact on our day. When the machinery of the state, when we interact with the machinery of the state it becomes then these maddening little pin pricks, and at some point there is going to be a tipping point. Is there any sort of mechanism in government that members of the public can approach to try and change some of these things that drive them nuts.

Well first of all I am really sorry. Look, whoever is responsible will be flogged obviously later today, and I really am sorry, and I may have been giving you wrong information that it was the Data Protection Act, I don’t know because it is not a decision I took and I am sorry it was taken this morning, I really don’t know what it was for. But of course there are worries about these things, but I think the British have a fairly common sense view, which is that I don’t think anybody minds on identity cards, I think you would win the civil liberties argument over 90%. I think people will expect to know: one, that this technology actually works; and two, that it can be done at reasonable cost to them, the citizens, and it is our job to make sure that people realise that. And the only thing I say is that this is one of these issues, there are long term issues that face the country which are issues to do with change, and this is one of them, where all I am trying to do is do the right thing. You know I didn’t come into politics to introduce identity cards, but it is there, it is an issue, and what I can see is biometric passports being issued in the next few years, and people turning round at a later time and saying well why on earth didn’t you take the opportunity of binding in identity cards at the same time, for a fraction of the cost. It honestly does make sense, to me anyway, but we will wait and see how other people view it.

Back to climate change and future energy policy. I know you haven’t made any decisions about Britain’s future energy supplies, but one of the things you have said is you want to keep open the option of nuclear power and a new generation of reactors. Can you just say a little more in general about why you think it is important to keep that option on the table, and in particular what do you say to people who would argue that until the Question of disposal of nuclear waste has been resolved you should rule out nuclear build?

If you look at the chart of our fuel supply over the next 10 – 15 years, which is not that long a time span, we are going to have to, as our present nuclear capability shuts down, we are going to have to essentially replace that with renewables, and a major part of that being energy through wind farms. Now there is also different technology developing in nuclear power at the moment. You know I don’t know at this present time, and I am not in a position to give an answer to the fact, is it ever possible to get back into this nuclear debate, maybe it is not. But I do know that anybody again who is responsibly looking at this can’t simply say we are refusing ever to look at the issue of nuclear power again, because otherwise just think of how much we are going to need to boost renewable energy by over the next 10 – 15 years, it is a lot. I am not saying we can’t do it, but I am saying it is going to be a heavy investment and it is going to be tough to do, and there are other countries who are going to take a different choice, including on nuclear power. So that is why I don’t think you should shut the debate down, but I have always said unless nuclear power can overcome the two problems of cost and public acceptability, it is very hard to see how you can ever get back into the system again. I just wouldn’t like it to be thought that we had taken a position that says we are never prepared to have this argument again.

Prime Minister, just looking forward to your meeting with the Taoiseach this afternoon and the hope for an IRA statement sometime in the future, how difficult do you envisage it will be to persuade Unionists that Republicans are for real this time, considering what has happened in the past?

I think it is going to be very difficult to persuade Unionism of the sincerity of any Republican move, which is why that move has got to be clear and bold, because then it will have to result, if the Republicans do give up violence once and for all, it will have to result in a proper power sharing executive in which the Republicans are able to take their place at the democratic table. So it is immensely important that they do make this move, I don’t know whether they will or not, but of course you know better than me that it would be daft to say after the events earlier this year that the credibility threshold was going to be easy to pass, but it can be passed, I am sure of that, if the IRA recognise that this is a one-off opportunity to accept what is now inevitable, which is that the only way that you are ever going to be able to pursue the cause that people believe in in Northern Ireland from the Republican point of view is peacefully, it won’t happen any other way. And political progress has achieved a lot in Northern Ireland, but we have got to go on and make it achieve more. So it will be difficult, but on the other hand if it is done, and it is done genuinely and violence is genuinely given up, then the obligation then transfers to Unionists to make sure that they drop their opposition to going into a power sharing executive, and that is the situation really.

On ID cards, if you are really confident in your own figures, then why not cap the cost of the ID cards and say that beyond a certain point then a subsidy would kick in?

I think there are a whole series of things that at a later point you can think about, depending on how it develops, but remember you don’t get your procurement back probably for another couple of years, your procurement bids. So you have got a process which you are only at the very beginning of now, but it stands to reason, no government is going to be introducing ID cards if the cost to the public is seen by them as unreasonable. The point is, what everybody is missing about the cost at the moment, and we try saying this but at the moment we are sort of beating our heads against a brick wall, is that the bulk of any cost of an identity card under our proposal comes, not with the ID card, but with the biometric passport. The actual amount of the identity card part of that is, as I say, on the estimates now under £30. And OK obviously things can change over time, but they can change either way over time, but it stands to reason that nobody is going to introduce it, if you can get acceptance by people that identity cards are in principle a sensible idea, then no-one is going to end up wrecking the scheme because of the cost, it would just be foolish to do that.

You know you are always in this difficult situation where if you rule something out then everyone says well that is it, it can never happen, and if you don’t rule it out they say ah it is about to happen. I am just saying you are not actually at the stage where you even have to make a decision about that. I am simply stating the common sense to you of the whole identity card thing, which is that in the end there is no point in doing this in any other way than that which takes public support with you.

During the election campaign and last month’s press conference here you gave us categorical assurance that whatever happened in France and Holland we would have a referendum in this country in any event, and later on in the House of Commons you gave a promise that the British rebate will not be negotiated away, period. Can you now give us an assurance that when the time comes you will not settle for just another version of what was offered to you in Brussels, and settle for a freeze of the rebate in any form?

Well first of all let me just correct you on the constitution. Actually what I did, and I think I even said this in the Sun newspaper before the election, is provided there is a constitution to vote on, we will have a vote.

OK, well we will take on a small bet on that. If you don’t have a constitution to vote on, it is a bit strange to have a vote. Right. So what we have said is that we have to resolve the position in France and Holland before this is a mechanism that is going to go forward again, but before the constitutional treaty is ratified, Britain will have a vote. So I can’t put it any clearer than that, and I think that is perfectly consistent with everything I have said before. Secondly, in relation to the rebate, again we have made it absolutely clear what our position is, the rebate arises for a reason, and unless the reason changes the rebate stays as it is, and that is the reason why we have been so tough about it and why we have turned down a freeze of the rebate, and will continue to turn down a freeze of the rebate. You know we are not being unreasonable about this, and this is why it is so important to point this out to people, without the rebate, in the next financial period, never mind the last one, we would actually contribute in cash terms more than Germany. That can’t be right, so that is why it is necessary to keep battling away.

I have just said, we can’t change the rebate unless the reason for the rebate changes, and quite apart from anything else, the reason why what was offered in Luxembourg was unacceptable was that it froze the rebate, and it froze the rebate in circumstances where there was no change of the reasons for the rebate existing. And I will look you out the quotes on the other thing, just to make sure.

Prime Minister, Dick Cheney says that the insurgency in Iraq is in its last throes, Donald Rumsfeld says it could take 10 – 12 years to bring to an end. Which of them do you agree with?

Well because I thought I might be asked this this morning, I actually looked at what both of them said, and didn’t Donald Rumsfeld say it could be 5, 8, 10, 12 years?

It depends whether the issue is, is the insurgency going to be in a position where it can upset the democratic government, or will there be people that carry on fighting long after everyone else is getting on with the daily business of a proper democratic government. Now I think the truthful answer to is that you cannot be sure exactly how long the insurgency may last, but what you can be sure of are two things: one, there is a democratic process in Iraq in place and it is in everybody’s interest, not just the US and the UK, everybody’s interest that that democratic process succeed; secondly, we are day by day building the capability of the Iraqi forces and that capability in the end is what will defeat the insurgents, and it will be the combination of the political process working and the insurgency being taken on, not by the multinational force, but by the Iraqi security forces that will defeat it. When that will happen, I can’t be sure exactly when it will happen, what I can be sure of is that we will stay until the job is properly done, and if the political process works, as I believe it will, and the Iraqi force capability continues to be built up, as it is being at the moment, then I think the insurgency will be defeated. And whether there are people that carry on after that in some way or another, well I don’t know, but it is the next year in my view that is absolutely decisive in this.

Further to the last Question, the Americans seem to be having their inquest on the Iraq war rather late, and support for the President’s position is faltering quite fast. Can you address two specific things which have come out in the last couple of days, one is were you aware that the United States was in direct talks with some elements of the Iraq insurgency and do you think that is a good idea, and secondly there has been confirmation that in the run-up to the war, in the autumn of 2002, there was an increase in bombing activities in Iraq by both the USAF and the RAF, either to provoke or to prepare for the coming war, did you authorise that and if so why?

In respect of the second point, no as far as I am aware the No Fly Zone, which of course had been operating over Iraq for ages, continued as it was. Of course as the tension rises, inevitably there may be more missions flown, but this wasn’t part of a sort of policy decision to go and ramp it up or provoke or anything else. And in respect of the first point, let me make it clear that throughout the entirety of this we have been engaged, perfectly properly, in trying to pull away some parts of the insurgency and lock them into the political process, and you know what these situations are like, you will have a spectrum and on one side there will be Al Zarqawi, some of the people utterly implacable, and then there will be a sort of spectrum leading through to people who aren’t engaged in violence but are sympathetic to the violence, and then in the middle you will have some people who may be involved in parts of the violence or not. It is our job politically to pull as many people into the political process. So that is an engagement, not just by the Iraqi government, but by the Americans, ourselves, others, everybody, and it is perfectly sensible and what it is trying to do is to make sure that in the end you get those people, for example people in the Sunni community who we were actually trying to help become part of the political process, to recognise their best way forward is participating in the December elections. You know we are not compromising our position with terrorism or any of the rest of it, we are simply trying perfectly sensibly to pull as many people into the democratic fold as possible.

On ID cards, how do you retain the common travel area between the Republic of Ireland and the UK, which is a virtual passport free zone, hundreds of thousands of people travel each way between the two countries without passports every year. How do you retain that, and at the same time retain the integrity of an identity card scheme within the UK? And can you confirm that the Home Secretary has been talking to the Irish government about similar plans in Ireland?

I can’t confirm the second point I am afraid because I am unsighted on it. I can try and get you an answer on it, but I don’t know anything about that myself. In respect of the first point, I am not sure of the technical answer to it, and perhaps I can get that answer to you, but obviously there will be situations in which even if people are coming from other countries in the EU there will be people without identity cards, the Question is does it give us a benefit inside the UK as a whole, and I think it does. And the issue I think to do with identity cards as well is that it is not that every single problem is going to be resolved by identity cards, that would be a ludicrous exaggeration the other way, but the point about this biometric technology is that it does give us for the first time a far more secure form of identification. You can, apparently with enormous difficulty and a lot of resource, and a lot of sophistication, you can get your way round even a biometric scheme, but it is very, very hard. And I wouldn’t be proposing identity cards but for the change in technology and the consequent change in passports, those are the two things that for me have completely altered the balance of the argument. And as I say I think that as the argument progresses people will see that.

… Andrew Murray’s obvious tennis talent, do you think the government should take responsibility for helping him fulfil his potential?

I think he is probably going to get a lot of help from a lot of quarters now, this particular young man, he has obviously done brilliantly, and good luck to him, I think we were all delighted to see such a strong performance. But we actually are trying to put more money into sport in schools and elsewhere, and we need to do that because there is no doubt at all that if you want, and also we are setting up specific academies for the top sporting youngsters and some of the new sports academies that are starting, because they can select some of their pupils, they are actually taking in some of the best young sporting talents – that is in England actually we have got the academy system, but obviously the sports academy for the most gifted and talented youngsters will apply to Scotland as well, I think. And through the lottery money we have given a lot of help to British athletics, so we are always seeing what more we can do. And I think that tennis is one area where it is obviously important we give support and do more, because quite apart from anything else it is a tremendous thing for people to be able to do and to do well into their middle age, although I am not well into my middle age. I was a bit distressed actually the other day to be told that you qualify for the veterans club at the age of 45.

As you prefer to discuss Africa at the G8, do you think it is time to look again at the rules which despite a ban on recruitment, still allow thousands of doctors, nurses and midwives, trained in Africa, to come and work in our Health Service? And is it a sign of a civilised society here that there are more nurses from Malawi in Birmingham than there are in Malawi itself?

Look, it is a terrible problem, but we have a protocol which we follow very carefully now. What you can’t do, and this is the problem, is you cannot actually prevent somebody who is in for example Malawi, deciding they don’t want to stay there and want to go elsewhere in the world. And the danger of that, unless you can get international agreement on it, is that they don’t work in the UK but they go and work elsewhere. So we have changed practice in the last 2 or 3 years precisely in response to concerns like this, but the best thing we can do in the end though is to put the healthcare system in these countries on a better footing, which is what the plan for Africa is all about.

The Hungarian Prime Minister raised the idea last week that EU leaders should implement an interim three year EU budget if there is no agreement on an overall EU reform deal by the end of the UK Presidency. Do you think this is an idea that the UK Presidency would be able to support? And secondly, do you envisage the possibility that because of the stalemate the new EU accession countries would end up getting considerably less EU funding in the next budget period than they would otherwise get.

We have to make sure that countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, get the funding they need. We were champions of enlargement, we are not going to let them down, so we have got to look at how we find a way forward on financing. I don’t think the best thing for me to do at the moment is to start trying to negotiate publicly over this. I obviously read with interest what the Hungarian Prime Minister said, but I don’t think we are at the stage yet to be able to give a definitive answer on it.

Back to Zimbabwe, if I may. Do you have a message for those who went on hunger strike at Campsfield Detention Centre in Oxfordshire?

I am, as I say, incredibly sympathetic to people who worry about facing deportation and then torture and human rights abuses. It is just important that the public understands that these are people whose asylum claims have been investigated, often they have been appealed and then they have been found to be unjustified. So we are not sending back people whose asylum claims we have agreed, we give asylum to people whose claims we agree. The trouble is that if I start saying I am going to put a moratorium on deporting people, even when their asylum claim has failed, I promise you we will be back into the situation where the clamour, and even a few months ago this was the clamour, was directly the other way – what on earth are you doing to sort out the asylum system? We are sorting it out, but we have got to be incredibly careful of the message we give now. So I have said in answer to earlier Questions, and I mean it, we will look carefully at this, we don’t want to be irresponsible or foolish about it, but it is very difficult, and this asylum system, as I know, because I have been grappling with it for years, is incredibly sensitive to signals that you send out. And we would have to make sure incidentally that whatever we did in respect of Zimbabwe people was consistent with what we would do in respect of others.

This week on Meridian Tonight we are looking at bullying in schools, and particularly to do with bullying by mobile phones, using text messages and so-called happy slapping. Is it time to stop children taking mobile phones into schools?

I think that is for the school to decide, but one thing we are very clear about, and I think you will see evidence of this in the next few months as we unveil proposals to do with school discipline, truancy, anti-social behaviour, we have got to be on the side of not just the law abiding pupil and parent, but of the teachers and head teachers in the schools, and the powers that they say they need, we will do our level best to deliver to them, because this type of situation can’t be allowed to go on.

Finding a solution to the Cyprus problem, and also ending the isolation of northern Cyprus does not figure under the UK objectives or the 2000 Presidency, will your government during the Presidency be taking another initiative? And talking of Cyprus, one cannot but mention Turkey, provided all the criteria are met, will your Presidency ensure that the accession negotiations will start on 3 October?

Well our obligation is to take forward the mandate that has been given to us by the European Council, so obviously we have got to abide by that mandate. And in respect of Cyprus, we will continue to do our best on Cyprus, the trouble is I can’t guarantee to make a settlement. I thought that the settlement that was there before was a reasonable settlement, unfortunately it wasn’t agreed. But we will do our level best to take it forward, but I would be wrong if I started giving promises on it.

You are meeting the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, this afternoon, less than a week after he told his own national parliament that your position on the EU budget, as he characterised it, was dishonest, was petulant and untruthful, sentiments echoed by his other Ministers as well. At the same time there have been grumblings from the Irish government that in some way there is a perception that the Taoiseach is being left out of the loop of your government’s contacts through intermediaries with the IRA. What has happened to the special relationship between you and the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern?

Well it is as fine and as good as it has been. Look, I get used to all this stuff being written and it really doesn’t make any difference at all. Ireland has got a different position on the CAP for reasons I think we all understand, and the Taoiseach quite rightly and properly, representing Irish interests, has made his views forcefully known. In respect of the IRA, I just don’t understand that part of it, we have been absolutely working together all the way through and actually had a long discussion at the Brussels summit about it, and today we will have an opportunity to take it forward further. But we have been involved in this together all the way through and all I can say is that the Taoiseach has been a tremendous partner, Bertie Ahern has played not just a positive role but a fundamentally important role in bringing about the progress that has been made. And I can assure you the relationship between us, both at a personal and a political level, is as good as it has been.

Yesterday in his first press conference, the new President of Iran called on the EU to step down from your ivory towers and stop speaking to the Islamic regime from a selfish point of view. What is your response?

My response is to say that we expect Iran to honour its obligations and we have tried to find a way through the impasse over nuclear capability, and we have done it in good faith, working with France and Germany and with the support of the United States, and we will continue to do it, but we need a willing partner on the other side and it is important that the new President understands that, and understands that obviously people will watch very closely what is happening with the new Iranian President because our view very strongly is that those obligations that Iran has entered into have to be upheld, and he would be making a serious mistake if he thought that we were going to go soft on them, because we are not.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

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

Comments:

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

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

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

» Monday, June 27, 2005

Prime Minister’s Press Conference

Prime Minister’s opening statement:

Question and answer session:

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries