6 November 2006
Tony Blair’s monthly press conference from inside 10 Downing Street was dominated by ID cards, Saddam Hussein’s death penalty and security in the Middle East.
Parts of this transcript may have been edited
Opening statements
Prime Minister:
Right, hello everyone.
I want today to explain why a secure identity system is so important. This is a vital part of the changes happening in how we manage issues of security in the modern world, and rightly it is now centre-stage of the political debate and I want to go through some of the arguments and try to explain why it is such an important debate. The world is more mobile than ever before, as you know. Capital moves freely across national boundaries, information is transmitted digitally in an instant, there is tremendous growth in trade and we have large-scale movement of people around the world. Indeed there are around about 30 million non-European nationals that pass through the UK now every year and that figure is rising the whole time.
But the open world brings with it new problems too. Identity theft for financial gain, illegal immigration and illegal working have all increased. One in four criminals use false identities, some terrorist suspects have as many as 50 assumed identities and indeed this is part of the training they have received in Al-Qaeda training camps.
What is more, the advent of the new biometric technology has completely changed the argument in how we combat these challenges. It is not just the world which is changing, but the technology we can use to deal with these issues is also changing. It means a national identity system has benefits it never had before and it explains also why it is sensible to do this now. And there are four essential benefits that I will set out for you today.
First there is the direct benefit in making the nation’s borders more secure. We can be clear who is here, we can improve the integrity of our asylum system, we can reduce illegal immigration and disrupt terrorist activity and of course it gives us better access to services. The electronic border system will in time let us count people in and out. We will be able to screen individuals before they have left home. In trials using biometrics on visa applications, just at 9 overseas posts we have identified in a reasonably short space of time 1,400 people who previously claimed asylum or who were in breach of the UK immigration laws trying to re-enter the country, so as this builds up over time, it is obviously of significant benefit. Illegal working would obviously be very much harder. An employer would simply need to check a person’s unique reference number against the identity register to demonstrate that the employee was permitted to work in the UK. We plan to make biometric identity compulsory for non-European foreign nationals coming here to work and for those applying for a National Insurance number from 2008 onwards.
Again, terrorists and criminals currently use false and multiple identities to avoid detection and also to launder money. For example one of the 11 September hijackers used some 30 different identities to obtain credit cards and somewhere in the region of a quarter of a million dollars worth of debt. That is one benefit.
The second benefit is the improved protection we can offer to the most vulnerable. At the moment checking the identify of potential employees can be complex and it can be bureaucratic. The National Identity Register will allow people to know that their prospective, for example, child minder or carer is indeed the person that they claim to be. The criminal record can be searched rapidly and easily.
Criminal detection is the third potential benefit. Over the past 50 years the detection rate halved. It has come back up again in the last 2 years but with the secure ID we can speed up these improvements. We will be able to compare, for example, some 900,000 outstanding crime scene marks with fingerprints held centrally.
Then the fourth benefit is the prevention of fraud. There were somewhere in the region of 135,000 cases of identity fraud in 2005 with over 55,000 reported cases in the private sector. Identity fraud - the estimates vary - but roughly in the region of £1.7 billion a year is what it has cost the country. And the value of major fraud cases in the Crown Courts is also at record levels. In addition, when consumers are polled about this, around about 50% of them feel that their identity is unsafe. One in ten say that they have been a victim of identity fraud. So in a sense at the moment the enterprising criminal has it fairly easy. Searching through the rubbish can provide the person with all that they need to steal an identity, but forging an ID card and a matching biometric record will obviously be quite another matter.
So I think the benefits of a good identity system are very clear. Secure borders, a protective shield for the vulnerable, better detection of crime, fraud prevention.
Now let us weigh that against the criticisms. People say for example this is a large-scale IT project, the government cannot do such projects. But if you take for example the DWP’s payment programme: 22.5 million accounts now paid directly, delivered on time and under budget. Or indeed a better analogy is the Identity Passport Service Database of the British Passports records holding 70 million records. They have issued 2.5 million biometric passports - the Passport Office - since March. Then there are those who will say, well identity cards, we are simply trading too much of our liberty. I think what was fascinating about last week’s debate about anti-social behaviour orders or DNA or the so-called surveillance society, is that actually buried in the body of most of those reports was the voice of real people, and unsurprisingly the public don’t have a problem with being protected from criminals using CCTV cameras or anti-social behaviour legislation or DNA that solves horrendous crimes that has left victims and families without justice for sometimes 10, 20, 30 years. And as we can see from the recent case in the papers, often with the wrong person being convicted for that crime.
Now of course there have to be safeguards, and built into this are very strong safeguards. Individuals without the right to see what information is held on them, the register will not contain medical records, tax or benefits information, and full accreditation will be required for any organisation to access the data with the individual’s consent.
Then the final argument is the cost and here I think there is a basic fact in this debate which is often left out of consideration. The key point is that biometric passports are going to be required anyway. The introduction of biometric passports this year has meant that British Passport holders retain their right to visa-free travel to the US. The European Union has recently agreed to introduce both fingerprint and facial biometrics for Member States passports within the Schengen area, and the reality is biometric passports which we are going to have to do irrespective of what happens on the identity base. And the interesting thing also is that we are not alone in doing this. It is sometimes suggested this is almost a whim of myself or the government but unrelated to what is happening around the world. The same factors are leading countries right round the world to be doing similar things. 52 of the 55 largest passport issuing countries are developing biometric passports or have firm plans to do so, and for example Italy, Spain, Portugal and France are planning to introduce, or are debating the introduction of biometrics in their existing ID systems. And the point is this: what this means is given that we have to do biometric passports, 70% of the cost will be incurred in any event. Of the actual combined passport and ID card, 70% of that cost is necessary for the biometric passport. So the relevant cost of the ID card for the purpose of this debate is the premium over the cost of the new biometric passport, and on current estimates biometric passports will on average cost at round about £66 and then the ID card will add less than £30 on top of that. And if you take it over the 10 year period it is about £3 per year.
Now finally I think there is another issue that we need to consider. I don’t think we have even begun to explore the benefits that we will see in the years to come, possibly 10 years ahead, but nonetheless the benefits from having the ability for people to access an identity register so that their own identity is secure are clear. In other words when this is put in terms of the liberty of the individual, often it is the individual themselves that actually need to have their own identity secure. And the Home Office will produce an action plan, I think it is in December, which will follow up this set of issues right across government where we will also be able to explain to people what the benefits to the individual are of having a secure identity system. And in a sense this is part of a new infrastructure that deals with problems such as this. It is a product of the modern world. We have got new technology in biometrics, we are going to have to be introducing biometric passports in any event. It gives us the opportunity to then have that national infrastructure of a secure identity register that allows us to tackle more effectively the issues that we face, whether it is crime or terrorism or illegal immigration or just the fact that individuals want to know that people cannot impersonate them.
So for all of these issues, you can think of some of the things that will be made a lot easier with secure identity and a reliable database. Opening a bank account, applying for a mortgage, buying a car, travelling through Europe, shopping online, getting a driving licence, notifying all and sundry of a change of address. And then there are the big gains of tackling benefit fraud and NHS tourism. So I believe over time we will be able to show people not merely that this is an issue that is important to security, but it actually makes the issues to do with accessing services in modern life far easier for people.
And one final point I would make is this. This is often put in terms of civil liberties, but actually I think this is an argument about modernity, and I think it is exactly the same argument that we have whether it is in relation to the DNA database or anti-social behaviour or these issues to do with CCTV and the so-called surveillance society. In the end we have a modern world that we are living in that has new and different types of crime. If we do not use technology in order to combat it, then we will not be fighting crime effectively. And that is why I think this is an issue that is important, it is right that we have a major debate about it and obviously the weeks to come, as you know from what John Reid was saying yesterday, will form a major part of the political debate. But actually in a sense almost more important than that it should form part of the public debate about the future and the future challenges and how we meet them most effectively.
Right, that is all I have got to say. I have brought Liam with me, Liam Byrne, the Home Office Minister, in case there are any technical questions for which I will look across to him to provide the answers. So let us take some questions.
Question:
I note with interest, Prime Minister, that the day after Saddam Hussein was convicted you have not mentioned Iraq. Why is it that you haven’t …
Prime Minister:
I am very happy to do so, incidentally. I assumed you would ask me about it rather than me having to ….
Question:
It makes a change, however, because you normally volunteer these things. Why is it that after the conviction of Saddam Hussein you can’t stand here and say that it is the turning point that you must once have dreamed that it would be.
Prime Minister:
The challenge that Iraq faces is very obvious but the trial of Saddam gives us the chance to see again what the past in Iraq was. The brutality, the tyranny, the hundreds of thousands of people that he killed, the wars in which there were a million casualties. And it also then helps point the way to the only future which for all the challenges is the one that Iraqi people want and is worth fighting for, which is a non-sectarian Iraq in which people from different communities live together and decide their future through democracy. And I don’t underestimate for a single instant the difficulties in achieving that but I still say it is a battle worth fighting. It is a battle that will determine not just our own security and global security but also the future of the Arab world in many ways.
Question:
Has it made you pause to reflect though? You must have believed when you went into Iraq, or the invasion of Iraq, that the conviction by an Iraqi court of the former Iraqi dictator would be some form of turning point. It will pass as just another day in the bloodshed in Iraq.
Prime Minister:
Well I have become very cautious about claiming turning points, but I don’t think I have anything really to answer to what I have already said except that I think that it is interesting, as I said a moment or two ago, just to reflect back on what he did and then ask the question would the world be better if he was still in power today with his two sons. I think not.
Incidentally, if you want to come back and ask something about security and what not I am perfectly happy to. Obviously I appreciate you will ask me about Saddam as well, but there it is.
Question:
I am afraid I want to ask about Iraq as well. A lot of people now do feel that it has been a bit of a catastrophe. You must at some moments begin to wonder if history will judge it a mistake. And if not, what do you personally feel are the grounds for optimism.
Prime Minister:
The grounds for optimism in Iraq are precisely that they have put Saddam on trial for his crimes that were appalling and tyrannical and utterly brutal beyond anything that anyone can imagine and that the Iraqi people came out - 70% of them, millions of them - to vote in an election. Those are the grounds for optimism. Is it tough? Yes, of course it is tough because there are people who don’t represent the majority of Iraqis who want to stop that future for Iraq. Sometimes part of the problem here is that you always think from some of the discussion about Iraq today, that the reason why there are problems or difficulties in Iraq is something to do with a planning mistake that someone has made somewhere along the way. The reason you have a problem in Iraq is that there are people deliberately trying to give us a problem. There are external forces linking up with internal extremists to try to create terror as the driving force of politics, rather than people going out to vote and voting in their government.
Now, what has happened however is the Iraqis, despite it all have kept their political process going and we have got to support them in that.
Question:
That really wasn’t an answer to my question in full. I completely understand that and you have said that many, many times. But in terms of security and order and a sense that things are turning a corner, where are the signs of optimism? Do you see them there?
Prime Minister:
Well as I say the democratic process is one. The fact that the Iraqi Army is building up is another. Look, a few weeks ago there was huge publicity given when in Al-Amarah the police station was over-run. There wasn’t so much publicity given when the Iraqi forces retook it. Now the challenges are very, very obvious but what the Saddam trial reminds us of is what the past was like. The sheer terror of the past. And of course it is incredibly difficult today, but it is difficult because of those deliberately trying to visit terror on the people of Iraq rather than allowing them to decide their future democratically. And the one thing you cannot dispute after the turn out in the Iraqi elections with people voting for what they knew was going to be a cross-party government, is that the majority of Iraqis want a different type of future. And when you talk to our people in Basra, their worry is about security of course, but they don’t want to live in a sectarian society. They want to live in one in which people coexist peacefully.
Question:
What Trevor Kavanagh even calls the barbarism of executing Saddam Hussein is not much of an argument for modernity, is it, and especially since the process by which he has been tried is one in which the British and American Governments have been complicit. And just on the subject of your presentation, you didn’t mention the fact that 65% fear they may be victims of identity fraud in the future. Isn’t that because they think that identity cards may make it easier for people to steal their identity rather than keep them? And in that long list you read out, mortgages and all the rest, are things that ID cards will make easier. Are any of them where people are actually having difficulties at the moment?
Prime Minister:
Well, just on the first point, I have got nothing to add to what people said about the trial yesterday but as I said to you just a moment or two ago, I think it is an extraordinary thing that they have been able to do this.
Question:
But do you think he should be executed?
Prime Minister:
Well, Margaret set out our position on the death penalty.
Question:
Well you are the Prime Minister. You have been Prime Minister for 10 years and she has been Foreign Secretary for 5 minutes. Do you think Saddam Hussein should be executed?
Prime Minister:
Excuse me, thank you very much. I have just said she set out the position for the government yesterday and that is all I want to say on it, right. Our position on the death penalty is well known but actually I think …
Question:
So he should be executed?
Prime Minister:
I have just said our position on the death penalty is well known. We are opposed to it, as Margaret said yesterday. So obviously, since we are opposed to the death penalty, we are in exactly the position that she described
Question:
You are opposed to his execution?
Prime Minister:
Excuse me, that is enough, thank you very much.
Question:
Why can’t you say it?
Prime Minister:
Because I happen to want to express myself in my own way if you don’t mind. Thank you.
Now on identity cards - what did you have for breakfast then this morning! Now on the 65% figure I think that what people worry about is not the situation, identity cards cannot make the situation worse in respect of people’s identity being stolen, because if you think about it for a moment you are going to have a far more secure way of protecting your identity because of the biometric technology. And you say what evidence is there that there are problems with false identity now.
Question:
…. getting a mortgage would become easier.
Prime Minister:
The point is that you very often, for example if you are opening a bank account, you have to produce a multiplicity of documents. This will be a very simple way of doing it. So you make it more simple. Some people when they say this, they say well you have put this case for identity cards. There is a whole series of different bases. Actually there is one basic gain which is to have a national identity database register that allows you to check people’s identity in a secure way. Now from that one gain there are many different streams of improvement. One is for the state because you can check more easily illegal immigration or illegal working. You can ensure for example that terrorists cannot have a multiplicity of identities. But the other is for you as an individual and one of the things that will happen, and this is what we will publish in December, is to show in how many different ways there will be a greater ease in doing transactions because you are asked for identity. So this will give you a sense not simply of, as it were, your protection but also how it will become more convenient for you. I mean for example, I suppose virtually everyone here has a system of identification for the buildings in which they work, and so on. There will be a whole set of private sector transactions that will be a lot easier and I think what is I hope interesting about the presentation is that it sometimes suggests we were the only country going down this path. Actually what is obvious is that all countries around the world are going to be using at least biometric passports and most of them, if they have got ID card systems, will be binding that into their ID.
Question:
Sorry, Prime Minister, I am still not clear. Would you like to see Saddam Hussein executed or not?
Prime Minister:
For the reasons given by Margaret yesterday, as I have already said, we are against the death penalty. We are against the death penalty whether it is Saddam or anybody else. However, what I think is important about this is to recognise that this trial of Saddam, which has been handled by the Iraqis themselves, and they will take the decision about this, does give us a very clear reminder of the total and barbaric brutality of that regime. The numbers of people that died, hundreds of thousands of them in mass graves in Iraq, the 4 million people displaced, the one million casualties of the wars that he started, it gives us a very strong reminder. That doesn’t alter our position on the death penalty at all, but it simply does give us a reminder of that. And the only reason I would simply refer back to what Margaret said is I think there are other and bigger issues to talk about in relation to this.
Question:
You said in your presentation that the ID cards debate is at the centre of political debate. Well the ID Cards Bill became an Act on 30 March of this year, the debate was earlier this year, it is not now, so why are you raising this now? And secondly, do you agree with Lord Falconer that parts of the criminal justice system are in general chaos.
Prime Minister:
Well I think from what I understand, if you read what he said in context, what he said was that the system was getting better but there were still areas that needed a lot of improvement. But I wasn’t there so I didn’t hear it. (Party political content) But in any event these debates don’t end with the passage of an Act, you then have to take the argument out to people. And I think there is a bigger argument at stake here, and this is the argument I am constantly talking about, which is how you handle the issue of liberty in the modern world, because my case is that traditional systems don’t work, they are not effective enough, and that is why you need the changes in the criminal justice system we are proposing, the changes in terrorism legislation, identity cards, antisocial behaviour legislation, laws on serious and organised crime. In my view the way that these things are dealt with in today’s world have to change dramatically, and the truth is we have made changes over the past few years, but on the whole you know that has been in circumstances where each and every bit of the legislation has been bitterly opposed. So there is a debate that is going on obviously in the legislation, but outside of it too.
Question:
Do you think in principle the Attorney General should step aside from a case where he might have close working relations with someone …
Prime Minister:
I have just got nothing to say on this at all I am afraid.
Question:
But in principle, I wasn’t asking you about a particular case.
Prime Minister:
No, I am sure you weren’t, but just in case you might possibly read across, the answer is no, I am not commenting on it.
Question:
If you will forgive me asking some parochial questions on global issues. Your former Environment Minister, Elliot Morely, said that Australia’s position on climate change, he described it as sleepwalking to oblivion. And some Australian Ministers have said it is extraordinarily ambitious to aim for a global trading scheme. I just want to know if you are satisfied with Australia’s position on the global trading scheme, and also on emission reduction targets. And while I have got you, your friends and colleagues in the Labour Party in Australia say if they win the next election within the next 12 months that they will pull Australia’s troops out of Iraq. Is that the sort of message you say again and again about pre-determined timetables providing succour to those who are attacking English and Australian soldiers?
Prime Minister:
Well if you don’t mind I am not going to get involved in Australian politics, and you know your government’s position on climate change is a matter for your government. I think our position is well known on this. The important thing I think is to try and get an international agreement.
Question:
But this idea that … if China, India and the US do. Is that the right position to take?
Prime Minister:
Well in effect, let’s be absolutely clear, in effect you will not get climate change dealt with unless you have got an agreement that has got America, China and India in it, and that is why I started the G8 Plus 5 dialogue, and I still think that is the best way to do this. I think however in relation to Iraq, look again I have made my position clear on this all the way through, I think it is important that we stay the course and finish the job, and that is about ensuring not that we stay there forever because it is our strategy to withdraw. You know sometimes it is put up as if our intention is to remain in Iraq forever, our strategy is to withdraw, but as I have said on many, many occasions, to do so when the Iraqi capability to handle their own affairs is built up properly. And that I am afraid is all I am going to say on your policy.
Question:
It seems to us all that you still have credibility with Israel and with Syria, and they respect you a lot and your envoy or advisor on Middle East affairs was there recently, Nigel Sheinwald. Could you tell us a little bit more about what he was able to achieve to get the possibility of negotiations between Israel and Syria? And wouldn’t that be a good step towards solving the security situation in Lebanon, rather than having Israeli overflights daily which are threatening the Siniora government who respect you again very much?
Prime Minister:
Well what we need is a strategy for the whole of the Middle East and we need to have that strategy in alliance with the countries there who want to see a region that is at peace with its essential conflicts resolved, and whether it is in Palestine, or in Lebanon, or in relation to Iraq, what is important is that we gain a common understanding of what a peaceful future would be. And I have got no doubt that that means that we need to revitalise the Israeli-Palestinian track, that is important, but as you rightly say the issues to do with Lebanon are also important to get resolution there. And we want Syria and indeed the other countries in the region to play a constructive part, and the purpose of such dialogue is to say people want a partnership, a constructive partnership, but it has got to be on agreed terms and those agreed terms is that we all work to resolve the disputes in the region in a peaceful way, and that is what I want to see. And you know I think sometimes again there is a misunderstanding that we have been shunning contact with people we don’t agree with. I am perfectly happy to reach out the hand of partnership to anyone who is willing to work with us, but they have got to be willing to work with us, and that is the purpose of it. And you are absolutely right in what you say, there is no future for the region unless we have a strategy that addresses the whole of the issues in the region and in my view having that strategy is actually a major part of turning the situation round in Iraq.
Question:
What did Mr Sheinwald achieve?
Prime Minister:
Well I think, if you will forgive me on that, there were a set of discussions that happened that at the moment I would prefer not to say more about.
Question:
A poll last week showed that 69% of British voters think US policy has made the world less safe since 2001 and 75% think President Bush is a great or moderate danger to world peace, which is a higher percentage than for Kim Jon Il or President Amhadinejad. Do you consider that reflective anti-Americanism, or given the size of those numbers and the general reasonableness of the British public, is there something worrisome at work? And do you consider that, actually given your own investment in the US-UK relationship disturbing or indeed a sign of failure?
Prime Minister:
It is worrisome and it certainly is right for me to say this, but with great respect for the views of the British public. But I also think it is important that occasionally we challenge some conventional wisdom. And September 11 happened before Iraq or Afghanistan. The roots of this global terrorism are deep and we are not going to defeat it if we half-way buy into the argument that in my view is absurd and wrong that somehow we are the cause of this global terrorism. We are not causing it. The people who committed the worst terrorist act that the world has ever seen on September 11, they didn’t suddenly come out of some foreign policy decision taken by President Bush, or me or anyone else. And we will only defeat this when we realise that we have to take on not just the methods of these people which are barbarous, but also this presumed sense of grievance which is completely false. And the fact is, you just examine for a moment, it is like this argument when people say well what has happened in Afghanistan or Iraq is causing greater terrorism in the world. Just reflect for a moment on the utter illogicality of that position. We have removed the Taleban in Afghanistan, and plainly a majority of Afghan people didn’t want the Taleban otherwise they could have voted for them in the election, but they didn’t, they voted for President Karzai. We removed Saddam, again if Saddam’s party had wanted to stand in the Iraqi election they could have stood and been voted in. Right, so that is not what the Iraqi people want. The Afghans and Iraqis are Muslims. The terrorism that is killing them is killing mainly Muslims and it is terrorism being perpetrated by the very self same people, with the very self same ideology that want to kill people here. So how does our removing two dictatorships and trying to give them a democratic process possibly justify increased terrorism by these people? It doesn’t. And one of the reasons why we have got to take this argument on is because otherwise we will buy into, what I say is an absurd argument, that somehow the reason these terrorist acts are happening is because of us, because of something we have done.
Question:
… the British public, are you losing the argument?
Prime Minister:
It is an argument, isn’t it, and it is a debate that we have to have. And you know sometimes however difficult it is to have the debate, and I don’t dispute the figures that you say, it is important that you stand up for what you think is right. And if you take Afghanistan, where also I think there are majorities of people saying why don’t we pull out of there, we should remember what happened in Afghanistan. The reason we were there in Afghanistan was that that was where the al Qaeda people who committed the September 11 atrocity were trained, so that is why we went in and we got rid of the Taliban and gave their country a chance of democracy. And if we withdrew now and let the Taliban and al Qaeda back running it, how would that make us more secure? And yet you are right, you have still got large poll figures in certain quarters at any rate saying this is what we should do. Well I am afraid the task of political leadership sometimes is to stand out against that and say well I am afraid I don’t think that is the right way for us to go.
Question:
To take you back to identity cards, you aren’t the first Prime Minister or first government that has talked about health tourism, but the NHS has never really checked up on people’s identities. Are you proposing to introduce a new obligation on public servants before they hand out benefits or they agree to treatment that they will have to check on the identity of people and see their identity cards? And when do you propose to make it compulsory for people to have identity cards that they then can access public services?
Prime Minister:
In order for it to be compulsory you have to have fresh legislation, so that is some way down the line, and emergency treatment is available without proof of identity in the NHS. But now, even now, there is supposed to be a check if there is non-emergency care offered, and what this gives us is an easier way to do that. And it means that for example people who are wrongly accessing non-emergency services in the NHS that we will have a secure way of checking up on that and of course that is a major problem for us as a country, but it is one example of where this whole business is changing. You see the important thing is really this. I wouldn’t be proposing this identity card scheme or the identity database were it not for the fact that biometric technology gives you a far more secure way of checking on people, were it not for the fact that in today’s world where people are migrating across frontiers identity abuse is an even bigger problem than ever before, and were it not for the fact that as a result of both of those things other countries are moving in the same direction. So my point is, whether it is in NHS services, or benefits services, or just in the ordinary transactions you do, or in fighting illegal immigration and crime, it is sensible with the new technology to have such a scheme. And incidentally one of the other things that people say is well you will be keeping all this information on people. We won’t be keeping any more information than people have for a passport already. It is the biometrics that is the important thing, it is not the information that you keep other than the same information you would have for someone with their passport. That is why I honestly don’t quite get the idea that somehow this is the sort of big brother society and all the rest of it. 80% of the population I think have passports. We are going to have to renew all those passports in the years to come.
Question:
That is just legislation in this parliament or the next parliament on compulsion?
Prime Minister:
Well I don’t think anyone has ever said that. This is some way down, it is in 2009 I think it is that you are introducing ID cards here for British nationals, so I would have thought it is some way down the line, that debate. But I will tell you what I think will happen, and obviously I am not going to be the person who does this, but I think what will happen in time is that people start to realise there is a benefit of taking a voluntary ID card up, it would just make life a lot easier. Look, if you are talking to any 18 year old or 19 year old who goes even down to the pub and is asked for proof of identity, it has got benefits there in a whole range of student services. This is why I think this notion that this is somehow something absolutely alien to the British way of life, a lot of young people are producing identity day in, day out, to do various transactions. And I don’t know what the answer to this point is, and I am still waiting for one, which is how on earth do you check on illegal immigration in this country unless you have a system of identity? I don’t see how you do it, there is no other way of checking who has got a right to be here and who hasn’t.
Question:
Louise Casey has said that police are not doing enough to enforce ASBOs and the Youth Justice Board say they have now become a badge of honour. Is the respect agenda failing? (Party Political content)
Prime Minister:
First of all let me just deal with this badge of honour thing, because you hear this when you go in different parts of the country. I don’t doubt there are some young people, and sometimes the word is in the local neighbourhood, you know it is a badge of honour. But don’t, honestly, the idea that that sums up what is happening on antisocial behaviour legislation, you could go up to the Kings Cross community, 10 minutes from here, and talk to them about how the use of antisocial behaviour legislation has transformed their local community. And when people say well 50% of ASBOs get breached, that means 50% of them don’t. You tell me what other law and order measures have anything like the same range of success. And those that are breached, half of them will actually go to prison. So antisocial behaviour legislation, it is like the CCTV nonsense about this is a surveillance society and all the rest of it, go and talk to local communities and find out how many of them are demanding they get rid of the local CCTV cameras. Every time you talk to real people about these issues they will say to you they want tougher measures on this, not softer measures.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
Yes, which is basically tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime in a different way. Look, of course you have got to invest in young people, in youth services, that is why we have got Sure Start, the New Deal, the inner city regeneration programmes, that is why we are investing in extended schools that are providing greater activities for young people, absolutely you have got to do all of those things. But I can’t say to some old lady who is getting her window put in every night from a gang of hoodlums, I am afraid you have got to wait until these kids develop a sense of social responsibility. You have got to take action to protect her. It is a false argument this, and my point is, whether it is CCTV or it is the DNA database, or it’s ASBOs, or it is this type of thing we are talking about today with a secure identity base, that is what the modern world demands you do if you want to fight crime. And the rest of it is just frankly what we have been doing for the last half century, until the last few years at least when things have changed. And there is no way we would have got some of the reductions in crime, because after all crime has in fact fallen if we hadn’t been taking some of these measures. And so I just think the tough love idea, as I say if it is about dealing with the causes of crime, of course you have got to do that, but you can’t honestly say to communities who are in fear, you know if they have got drug dealers living in the street, you know love is not the answer to that I am afraid, evicting them from their home and locking them up is the answer.
Question:
Shouldn’t Britain be taking the lead in seeking a ban on cluster bombs?
Prime Minister:
We abide by all the international conventions on this, and we will continue to do so, and we only use any ordnance in the circumstances which the international conventions have laid out.
Question:
The Olympic Games finances are getting very confusing. The organisers are asking the Treasury for one or two billion pounds and the Treasury seems to be asking for a billion pounds in VAT. London’s Mayor says he is quite sure there won’t be any extra call on London households through the council tax, other than what has been set, can you say whether you agree with him on that? (Party Political content)
Prime Minister:
I can’t actually enter into the detail on this VAT business because I would have to get briefed up on it properly. I would just refer you to what the Treasury and DCMS are saying on it. Obviously the whole costs of it are being looked at, but I think Ken is basically right. We have said what should come from Londoners and I don’t think we are looking for more on that. But my understanding, but this is something honestly it is better to check with them, is that there are cost implications both up and down and that is kind of what you would expect with a project like this, and I don’t doubt before the project is through there will be a series of ups and downs on the costs in every single aspect of it. But let’s not forget what the Olympic Games is going to be doing for London and for Britain, which is stupendous and positive.
Question:
I am baffled as to why you are not answering questions about the Attorney General. One of your Ministers, herself a lawyer, was perfectly happy to talk about it at the weekend. There is a question of public confidence in this, isn’t there a conflict of interest? And is the reason you are not answering questions because you yourself are going to be facing the detectives in coming weeks?
Prime Minister:
No that is not the reason. The reason is because I don’t think it is appropriate for me to say anything on this, and I don’t intend to.
Question:
Prime Minister, with respect your answer about the Middle East to my colleague remained rather vague, and while we see people are getting still killed in Gaza and in Palestine, and while the situation remains very fragile in the Lebanon, what exactly are the strategic plans that you have? And also if I may ask about Iraq, many people in the area, actually many editorials today talk about quite a few new Saddams in Iraq, might we be seeing new people going to court in Iraq, we know that death and destruction is rather equal these days … Saddam?
Prime Minister:
Well just on the last point, the difference is that the present Prime Minister is the product of a democratic election, which is a big difference from Saddam, and I know that he is committed to a non-sectarian government. It is true there are people who are murdering and killing.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
Yes, but this is the whole point, which is important to realise. The reason why we have a challenge and a difficulty in Iraq is because there are people on both sides who are linking up with external forces to create terrorism inside Iraq in order to disrupt the process voted for by the majority in Iraq, and my point is stick with the majority and stick with the government that was elected by the majority and not desert them at the very time when they are most under challenge. As to the first point, look I can go through each one of these individual issues, but basically in relation to Israel and Palestine, what we need is, as I have set out for months, the release of Corporal Shalit, we need Palestinian prisoners also released, we need a proper set of meetings under way that allow us then to plod our way back through to a negotiated solution, which is the two state solution. And what is happening in the Gaza at the moment is tragic, it is terrible.
Question:
When are you going?
Prime Minister:
I don’t know when I will be going back to Israel and Palestine but it is my intention to go back and I will probably be able to say a little more about that in the next couple of weeks or so.
Question:
The sort of hiatus of September and your future and the Chancellor’s position seems to have died down dramatically recently.
Prime Minister:
You are going to wind it back up, are you?
Question:
If I can. Are you now satisfied that Gordon Brown will succeed you as Prime Minister in the coming 10 - 12 months.
Prime Minister:
Well I don’t, I am afraid want for precisely this reason to add to any more speculation on this. I have said I will speak at the appropriate time, and I will, but I have got nothing to add to what I said in the House of Commons last Wednesday, at the moment.
Question:
You already have a national agency to fight organised crime, are you considering setting up a national agency to fight terrorism? And just a follow-up on Martha’s question, have you agreed a date yet with detectives to be interviewed over the loans investigation?
Prime Minister:
My spokesman answers questions on that last one every single day, or practically, and he can answer them again today. On the first point, we have a national agency that fights terrorism in this country, in fact we have more than one, and I think the way that the police service and the MI5 work together is actually very good and I don’t see a reason for changing that, although I think it is perfectly sensible to keep under advisement the entire time exactly how we best organise our terrorist fighting capability, but we do also need to make sure that we have the legal armoury there in order to be able, for example, to deport people who we believe are inciting terrorism in this country. And the reason why I think this is part again of the same argument to do with ID cards, or surveillance, or indeed antisocial behaviour is that you have new crime problems, this global terrorism is one, and the old methods of fighting it don’t work. I regard it as completely ridiculous that we have the situation where we are still trying to deport people who we believe are trying to incite carnage in this country, but they are foreign nationals and there are worries raised about whether we can deport them to a country and they are going to be properly looked after or not, and therefore we have got to keep them here and take the risk of keeping them here. Now these court decisions are coming out and at the moment we appear to be succeeding in them and that is very positive, but you know I think for most members of the public they would regard it as absolutely bizarre that we have got to hold people in this country who are foreign nationals who are trying to commit terrorist acts or incite others to commit terrorist acts in this country and it is a huge difficulty getting them removed, and exactly the same incidentally with failed asylum seekers, though I am not suggesting that they are all terrorists, of course they are not, but it is exactly the same problem.
Question:
If I am not wrong, in 15 minutes or something you will see Mr Prodi for lunch, the Italian Prime Minister. You were getting along pretty well with Mr Berlusconi, how do you think, are you looking forward going along with Mr Prodi in terms of personal relations? And what are the topics that you are going to discuss, climate change, and energy security, the Middle East and others, what is maybe the topic that want most to discuss?
Prime Minister:
Well first of all obviously Romano Prodi is not a new personality to me since he is someone I have worked with very closely when he was Italian Prime Minister before, and then he was years at the European Commission. So this is someone who has been a colleague and friend of mine over virtually all the years of my Premiership. What we will discuss I suspect will focus particularly on the Middle East as well as Europe and I would like to support his leadership, particularly in respect of the Lebanon where Italy took a very important lead role there, and also for the work that his forces are doing in Afghanistan and indeed in Iraq. And I should imagine we will talk about the Middle East and how we bring greater stability to that region given its impact on all of our security. And Italy is a country that is most close to this. And I have got no doubt also we will talk about issues to do with migration and so on, because I know these are big issues in Italy too. So I am looking forward to seeing him in half an hour’s time, or less.
Question:
Prime Minister, we understand that the main themes of the Queen’s Speech coming next week will be law and order. There is also going to be a climate change Bill there we understand. Could you say on the Climate Change Bill why you have decided against annual binding targets, backed up by statutory legislation?
Prime Minister:
Yes, because you couldn’t be sure you could deliver it. The people that are advocating this, this is where as a government you have got to have serious policy making. We are not against the concept of binding targets, indeed we have got them, but if you were to say every single year you are going to have a 3% reduction in carbon emissions, the weather could knock you off that. The weather can mean, I think I am right in saying, in 2001 was it, anyway within the past few years just the difference in weather made a significant difference of that order - 3% on your CO2 emissions. Now it is all very well for people to say make it a binding target, implemented by an independent Monetary Policy Committee type of body, well you tell me how many politicians are going to be putting their hands up for the measure by which you would have to achieve that. If I suddenly had over and above what I thought I was already going to do, to reduce CO2 emissions by something like 3%, you would be talking about some pretty heavy measures in terms of tax. So I am perfectly happy to have this debate with people, (Party political content) but they are going to have to explain what measures they are prepared to take in order to achieve this.
But what you can’t have, look for goodness sake this is why you have got to have a serious debate about the environment, not a debate that is based on people trying to trade headlines with each other. I mean you remember the debate we had over the fuel duty escalator, right, so tell me how many people were leaping up in the House of Commons saying you must keep the fuel duty escalator, it is absolutely essential? Well I can’t remember many questions to me on that. So you have got to be sensible about this. We have 2% of emissions in the UK, that is why all this stuff, you know we are about to clobber everyone with taxes and all the rest of it. Look, there are many, many different measures that you can take to act on climate change and it is important that we keep our leadership position on this. But in the end don’t be under any doubt at all, it is of course important for us to take domestic measures here in the UK, but the only solution that will work ultimately is one in which you have got the leading countries of the world engaged, in particular America, and China, and India. If you don’t have those countries engaged then Britain could wipe out the entirety of its, you know we could shut down every single power station in the country, turn off all the lights, and China would make up the difference in emissions within about 15 or 16 months, the growth in China. So that is why it has got to be an international agreement in the end to do this.
Question:
Prime Minister, I wanted to ask you back again to Palestine. There are talks for the formation of a unity government and there is talk that the current Prime Minister is willing to abdicate his position to lead and let an independent technocrat take over his position. However, the government would probably still have Hamas representatives. If there was a national unity government with … Hamas and other independent candidates in it, would you be willing to talk to that government, although there are Hamas members in it. I also wanted to ask you about the visit of Mr Salva Kiir from Sudan, were you able to convince him or pass on the message to President Bashir regarding the deployment of international troops in Darfur and have you gone any further on that, and what can actually be done to convince the Sudanese government?
Prime Minister:
On the first point, the answer to that is yes, we are prepared to talk to a national unity government, even if they have Hamas members in it, provided it is a government that is in accordance with the Quartet principles, in other words laid down by the United Nations, and that is the important thing. You know I don’t want to dispute the mandate of Hamas, they won an election, but if they want us to negotiate with them, you can’t negotiate a two state solution - Israel and Palestine - if one part of the people you are negotiating with is saying but actually we don’t want Israel to exist. So that is the issue. And I just wanted to say this again, what is happening in Palestine at the moment, and in particular in Gaza, is just terrible, it is terrible. The people are living there in a situation of worsening poverty, violence, different militias and gangs, you know the appalling incident the other day when women were killed. It is a terrible situation, but there is a solution, and this is what is so frustrating, there is a solution. If a government was formed that adhered to the UN principles we could get this negotiation going very quickly, but we need that and it is the only way through it. But it is not a stipulation of the international community that we are insisting that Hamas play no part in the government, but we are insisting that whatever government there is is a government that we can negotiate with.
As for the Sudanese Vice President, I passed on to him a very clear message and it may help if I repeat it. There is no desire whatever to have the UN force take over Sudan, to change the government, to pursue members of the government before the International Criminal Court. There is no desire to do any of those things, there is a simple desire to stop the displacement of people and the death of people in Darfur, and in order to do that, since the government of Sudan has been unable to do it we need an external force and it should be an external force with sufficient capability that they are able to keep the sides apart, the Sudanese government should be looking then to bring all the parties into a negotiated solution and to stop the violence. So that is a very simple message and it is the message I gave to the Vice President to carry back to the President of Sudan. And there are other things in the news at the moment, but this is not off our agenda at all, not here, not in the US, not in Europe. This is an important issue and in the next few weeks we will have to have some form of progress or we will be looking for other ways to resolve this.
Question:
There is a NATO Summit coming up shortly and the NATO Secretary General, whose name I cannot pronounce, has said in an interview which is published today that he regards there is a need to overhaul the whole Afghan operation, he said for the lack of co-ordination, there are too many troops with caveats as to what they will and won’t do and the opium trade is continuing to flourish. In particular he says that the EU should be in charge of the police and America in charge of training the Army. Do you see there is a need to overhaul the Afghan operation and the NATO operation now?
Prime Minister:
This will dominate the Riga Summit, quite rightly. And of course I discussed this with him when he was here a short time ago and we basically agreed that we need to do far more to make sure that the government in Afghanistan is supported, because what is happening, this is the whole purpose of us moving down into the South, is that we are finally getting to the point where you have to make the writ of the Kabul government run in the whole of Afghanistan and you can’t do that if bits of the South for example are outside the control of the government and in the hands of the Taliban or al Qaeda, and that is why it is important that we strengthen our operation there. But I think it is strengthening it rather than changing it completely, but the point that he is making, look it is like policy in Iraq as well, there has been a lot of talk about do we need a new strategy, your strategy evolves the whole time as the situation evolves, so whether it is in Afghanistan or Iraq, we engage in a constant process of assessment and reassessment because the facts on the ground are changing and the Taliban is obviously mobilising to fight back very hard, they realise this is a critical period, we have therefore got to mobilise sufficient forces to stop them. And in Iraq it is exactly the same, this was a different type of conflict two years ago from the conflict it is now so you evolve your strategy in order to meet it.
Question:
Just to be clear on ID cards, Prime Minister do you envisage finger print and iris scanners in every doctor’s surgery, in every bank, in every hospital, in every post office? Where else?
Prime Minister:
Well it is up to people to decide, look this is a voluntary scheme.
Question:
But you just said you will need the biometric to prove that you are who you are, so you will need a way of testing it.
Prime Minister:
But it is not that the government, as it were, is going to go in and try and force everyone to do this, but I think that what will happen is that over time people will see the sense of it. It is a simple way to check.
Question:
In the NHS you are presumably?
Prime Minister:
Yes, but not just the NHS, in other areas as well. So if someone comes along say to register at the doctor’s surgery, at the moment if you are not a UK national you have to go through a system in order to prove your identity, this gives you a far simpler, and better and more secure way of doing it. And that is why I would be astonished if you didn’t find, not just in the NHS and in benefit offices, but across a range of government services and then across a range of private sector transactions people will use the fact that you have got a secure identity base. The real point about this is the identity register, that is what allows you through the simple check of your biometric, you know facial scan, finger prints, to check someone’s identity and it is secure, it is as secure as any technology can give, it doesn’t mean to say you can never have a situation of difficulty in it, but it is the advent of the biometric technology that makes the change sensible. If you didn’t have the new biometric technology you probably wouldn’t be having this debate, but we do and therefore we may as well use it. And I would have thought there will be a range of financial institutions that will use this, for all sorts of different transactions, whereas at the moment they have got to go through a complicated and convoluted system in order to prove identity. And that is why, as I say, I keep saying to people, when you actually boil it down this is not an issue about civil liberties, it is actually an issue about modern life, it is about the way life is changing and the different pressures you are subject to, and the fact that you have got this technology here just makes it sensible to use it.
Question:
No-one in Scotland is in any doubt about your view of independence, you never turn down an opportunity to talk about what a disaster it would be economically and politically, and I am sure you won’t turn down this opportunity now either. But even though you are making that case, (Party political content) the polls show that actually support for independence is rising, the latest poll puts the figures for a separate Scotland at 51%. Why do you think so many people don’t agree with an argument you find so straightforward, so clear cut, so convincing, and what are you (Party political content) going to do about this? Do you just have to shout louder or do you have to change tack and possibly engage a little more with people who can see the case for independence?
Prime Minister:
No, you have got to engage with people, you have got to persuade them, that is what politics is about. You know politics isn’t about just taking whatever the passing opinion poll is and saying right, that is it, we have now determined that question, it is about listening to people but it is also about engaging them. But the fact that you have the United Kingdom is of enormous benefit to Scotland, as it is with England. We trade with each other the whole time, we share a currency, we share armed forces, we share social security systems. There are enormous benefits. You rip Scotland out of the UK, (Party political content), you will lose those benefits and you will end up with an uncertain economic future with less power for people in Scotland to effect the big changes that are happening in the world.
Question:
… would that help?
Prime Minister:
I don’t think it is about that actually. What I think it is about is the attempt (Party political content) to say you are only truly "Scottish" if you are making the case for independence. But that is rubbish. The question is what is in the best interests of Scotland? And what is in the best interests of Scotland is to have a strong Scotland within the United Kingdom where you have got the benefit of devolution, you take your local decisions in relation to law and order, and education and health and so on, but at the same time you get the benefits, as we do in England, of being part of the United Kingdom.
Question:
On the question of identity, you were born in Edinburgh, you were educated in Edinburgh, are you Scottish?
Prime Minister:
Well I was born in Scotland, you know I don’t go back over these things, I don’t particularly look at it that way or not because I have lived all my life in England. But on the other hand, you know people can be Scottish and British, I actually think Gordon put it very well in his conference speech. This is my view, OK, but this is the debate that is going to happen and the great thing about the democratic process is there is going to be an election and it is not going to be decided by an opinion poll, it is going to be decided by an election in Scotland. But I think when you look at the issue of independence, actually the sensible way to resolve these things round the world today is to have a constitutional settlement in which the things that obviously should be decided down at the level of the Scottish parliament are decided by them, that is what I mean by saying the National Health Service, or schools or law and order or local government, these issues decided close to the ground, and at the same time on the issues where obviously we have got a common UK interest, whether it is the economy, or armed forces or the benefit system or pensions, to end up having a separate Scottish currency, separate Scottish Armed Forces, separate Scottish economy when we are so integrated together, it would be disastrous for people. And I think that when this debate progresses, (Party political content), I think and I hope, but this is up to us to make the argument, they will realise the positive benefits of the United Kingdom. You know through the United Kingdom we are all stronger together, including in England incidentally.
delicious
digg
facebook
