23 February 2006
Iraq, education, public sector reform and the fight against terrorism were at the top of the agenda during February’s press conference.
Parts of this transcript may have been edited
Opening statement
Prime Minister:
Good morning everyone. I am going to say a few words about the reform programme, but I know obviously you will want to ask me questions on Iraq and no doubt a lot of other issues as well. But I thought, if you don’t mind, I will just take a few moments to set the context for what is the continuing reform process of the government.
There is now a programme of reform coming into place across the public services. Some of it will require legislation, some of it merely requires detailed implementation, but all of it needs to be driven through over the coming months and years. Together they form a coherent agenda to prepare Britain for the challenges of the future.
On education we know that there is an immense amount of progress at every single level: 11 year old, 16 year old, 18 year old there has been a significant increase in the numbers of people, or the numbers of pupils, getting the results that they need. On the Education Reform Bill we have given the reassurance on selection and on the necessary strategic role of local authorities, but over the coming days and weeks what we want to do is to set out what are going to be the benefits of this legislation for schools and wholly contrary to one of the reports that was there in the newspapers this morning - and they say so far programmes like excellence in cities, literacy and numeracy, specialist schools and the City Academies have shown real and significant improvements in results. And it is precisely because of those improvements that we want to take that reform process and deepen it.
The legislation however is merely going to be the first step. After the legislation goes through, we have then got to take advantage of the benefits that the legislation outlines.
On the Health Service we have got practice-based commissioning, the payment by results system, patient choice, all of which amounts to a huge re-engineering of the system to get to the 18-week target from the door of the GP to the door of the operating theatre, which effectively means the end of waiting within the National Health Service.
Then on Welfare and Pensions there is the Welfare Reform provisions which will get more people off benefit and into work and the idea there is over the years to increase the numbers of the working population so that we can then fund the better pension provision we want to see, and the pension legislation will obviously be in the next Session, but then of course that too has to be implemented in detail.
Then there is on crime the Serious and Organised Crime Agency which goes live on 1 April and we will set out then not merely what the Agency is going to be doing but the new powers it needs.
In Energy Policy by June we will have a plan on how to move forward and take the difficult decisions on Energy Policy for the coming years.
And if I can just say one other thing, because it has been again in the papers over the past few days, and that is the Regulatory Reform Bill. This is a very, very important piece of legislation. It allows us to get rid easily of redundant and out-of-date regulation. Again, contrary to some of the reports, there will be the mechanism available for people to trigger a debate on a particular deregulation measure if they want to do so, so it is not the case that it is going to pass through Parliament without any scrutiny. On the contrary there is a series of processes that I can set out if anyone is interested in me doing so as to why this protects absolutely the right of people to hold the executive to account, but it does mean you don’t have to have primary legislation every time you want a deregulation measure.
The danger I suppose with all the reform, however, is that it focuses on process, but it is the purpose that matters and the purpose is to improve the lives of Britain’s hardworking families to give them opportunity and security in a rapidly changing world where traditional patterns of economic and social life are being radically transformed. And on education specifically what matters is that the reforms lift standards, make good schools excellent, average schools good, and those failing give them a new lease of life. Our aim therefore is not to establish a two-tier system, but on the contrary to get rid of it, to help children, especially from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, to overcome their disadvantage and do well. It is why, however difficult, we shall continue and persevere with the reform and hopefully succeed.
Right, that is all I want to say on the reform process. And now is the time for questions. Who wants to go first? Yes, Adam.
Question and answer session
Question:
I want to ask you about Guantanamo Bay. We know that you have described it as an anomaly, but with all due respect that does sound rather mealy-mouthed. There is a suggestion now from the Foreign Affairs Committee that you should make loud and clear your objection to Guantanamo continuing. Are you prepared to do that?
Prime Minister:
I think I have said really all I want to say on Guantanamo. I have said it is an anomaly, I have said it should end, and sooner rather than later. I don’t think I have got anything more to say on it .
Question:
If I may just pick that up. Other people have been much clearer in government. Why are you pulling back from the condemnation that the Foreign Affairs Committee makes today. Do you disagree with them that Guantanamo Bay diminishes the USA’s moral authority, do you disagree with them that it is a hindrance to the effective pursuit of the war against terrorism?
And if I may on Iraq, do you now accept that government may have underestimated the degree of ethnic tension in Iraq, and do you fear a descent into civil war?
Prime Minister:
Well on the first, look I will be very clear with you, I have said why I think that Guantanamo is an anomaly and should come to an end. I have said all that. I also think however it is important we never forget the context in which this has happened, which is the context of the war in Afghanistan and the reason for that was the slaughter of 3,000 innocent people on 11 September. Now it is important, of course, that we pursue the action against terrorism, maintaining absolutely our commitment to proper civil liberties and human rights, but it is also important that we remember those people that died in that terrorist act, and have some understanding therefore of the huge amount of anger that there is in America of what happened there.
In respect of Iraq, this was an act of desperation as well as an act of desecration by the people who committed this outrage and the struggle in Iraq today is the same struggle the world over. It is democracy versus extremism and terrorism, and the very purpose of those who desecrated the shrine is to stop the will of the Iraqi people, expressed in an election in which over 10 million of them voted for the country to come together in a unity government. And therefore my response all the way through, whenever these difficulties arise, is to stand up for democracy, for liberty, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, and to make sure that the terrorists are defeated, and that is what we have got to do.
So yes of course it is a difficult situation, but in the end why are these people doing this? They are doing it at the very moment and in order to prevent the coming together of the parties across Iraq, because what has been happening in Iraq over these past few months is that all the parties - Sunni, Shia and Kurdish - have been coming together and working together to form a unity government. Now, why have they tried to provoke this internal strife in Iraq? Precisely because they know that if these people who are trying to bring about democracy and give expression to the will of the Iraqi people succeed, then that is a huge blow to these terrorists, in Iraq and elsewhere. So again my point is that each time this happens the prism we have got to have in this is not to say, well, let us walk away or let us give up, or say well let the terrorists get their way. Our response has got to be no, we stand up and we defeat these people because what they are trying to do is defeat the will of the Iraqis expressed in an election.
And it is the same in Afghanistan. What is happening in the south of Afghanistan is that remnants of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are trying to get back power. Now the Afghan people have made it clear what they want. They voted in an election, millions of them. In fact there has been a higher turn-out in Iraq than there was in either the American or the British elections.
So what is our objective here? Stand up for democracy against terrorism, not walk away from it.
Question:
News 24 is always first with the news. Can I just follow up on Nick’s question. What now is the chance of civil war in Iraq? How likely is that a possibility? The leaders are now talking about it as a possibility and warning against it. In your view how likely is it?
Prime Minister:
The great thing is that is exactly what the leaders are doing. They are warning against it, and the Shia, and the Sunni and the Kurdish leaders are saying, don’t let these people have their way, don’t let them destroy the democracy we are building in Iraq. Look, what has been going on for the last two and a half years in Iraq, starting with the assassination of the UN officials who were there in Iraq. What has been happening is you have had two things going on simultaneously. A building of a democratic process, which bit by bit by bit has strengthened so that you have got more people participating in the December elections than in the ones in the previous January, and that democratic process, as I say, is now culminating in the discussions that people are having to try and form a unity government, and then at the same time what you have got is the terrorists at every single stage of this disrupting it.
So I think, of course, it is a major moment of decision for Iraq, but the people in Iraq spoke when they came out in their millions and voted in the election. They are speaking now through their democratically elected leaders who want to find a way through for people of good will in Iraq to come together and govern the country as a democracy. And this is a vital struggle, not just for people in Iraq, but for people throughout the world. In my mind there is a very, very direct link between what is happening in Iraq, what is happening in Afghanistan, what is happening in the Lebanon at the moment. At each stage of this you have people expressing their desire to live in freedom and democracy, to elect their government, not a gang of extremists to decide who the government of the day is, but to elect their government.
Now when that happens, our task has got to be to stand up with them and to help them through this process. And of course it is going to be difficult. You will have a lot of pressure from people who, obviously, within the Sunni community and the Shia community, they will be nervous and anxious and worried as to what is happening. But this is the point. This is what is at stake and we have got to be absolutely resolute in this and to help the Iraqi leaders who by and large are speaking with a great deal of authority and dignity in their desire to say, the terrorists want us to divide, let us not do what they want us to do. It is not a dissimilar message you might think than the message which we had here in this country when the terrorists struck.
Question:
On domestic matters, have you got a message for the MPs who don’t seem to have understood your side of the argument on the Education White Paper. Do you think they are not listening, not understanding. Have they got their heads buried in the past. Are they perhaps becoming a bit oppositional? And just on the list of items that you gave us, the areas that you still feel you want to achieve change in. Is there a message in that list for people who think you are going some time soon?
Prime Minister:
It is just a message to say there is a lot to do, and a lot to get done. But on Education all I am saying to my own Members of Parliament who may be worried about the education reforms, is if your worry is that it is an attempt by the back door to bring back selection, we have dealt with that. If your worry is about local authorities, we have dealt with that. But the essential freedom of schools is a necessary part of lifting standards in schools and helping particularly the most disadvantaged kids to get a decent break in life and what I ask people to do is, over the next few days and weeks as we give examples of how these reforms will benefit real schools and real situations, then people listen to that and ask whether having some of that is not actually just what we need in our school system. And the reason I - somewhat defensively perhaps - mentioned the report that there was this morning about the government and its reform programme, is if you actually study what we have done so far, it is not merely excellence in cities in literacy and numeracy that has worked, although they have significantly raised standards, particularly in the inner city, it is also for example with specialist schools outperforming traditional comprehensives significantly. Voluntary aided schools outperform traditional comprehensives. The City Academies - there was a report again today about the Bexley Academy - the actual report from OFSTED is on the whole immensely complimentary. Now it is true they say that the very rigorous standards and targets for improvement in results they may not quite attain, but if you read the overall report the idea that it is writing off the Bexley Academy is absurd, it actually says it is an amazing feat that the school is achieving there. So what I am saying to people is, and my own Members of Parliament is, let us just look at the evidence of what the government has done already and you can see the reason why it is important to continue this process. So, we will wait and see anyway.
Tom. You are sort of separated out from your colleagues.
Question:
Well, I have been sent away. I am sorry about that. We didn’t win RTS News Channel of the Year. So we have been packed off …
Prime Minister:
Well we will still call you.
Question:
Well that is very kind of you. Thank you very much.
Can I just ask you a little bit more about what Gary was suggesting there. You were elected to serve a full term. Do you intend to do so, or have you done a deal to go a little earlier than that? And secondly, whoever succeeds you, would it be a good idea for them, in your view, to call a General Election fairly quickly afterwards to re-legitimise the Party?
Prime Minister:
That is what comes of giving you the extra time to think of all those questions. Look, if you will forgive me, I don’t want to go back over the usual saga and I will refer you to all the answers I have ever given on that question. And for the moment we are getting on with the programme that is necessary. Look, the important thing about politics at the moment is that you can focus on process but the important thing is to link the changes that we are making to people’s lives because otherwise the public just feel shut out of the political debate. But the reason for the education reforms is to lift standards, to give kids a decent education, and the health reforms to improve the quality of care in the Health Service, and Welfare and Pensions to prepare the country for the future. So that is what we have got to concentrate on, and if we turn politics into a continual soap opera then it is just a pain for everyone and not least I think for the public.
Right George. The first George and then the second George.
Question:
How do you feel when it is said that you are currently running a dual Premiership with Gordon Brown?
Prime Minister:
Well, I feel as I always do about those things that if you look at where they are supposed to have originated, there was a lot less in that story ever appeared.
Question:
So there is no dual Premiership?
Prime Minister:
Well, as I think everyone has made clear, that isn’t the way the system works. And I think I am right in saying that the particular interview that was supposed to have given rise to that, despite the headline didn’t actually bear out the story. So there we are.
Question:
The heir to the throne, the Prince of Wales, has been in the news recently. Do you feel that he has overstepped the bounds of politics with his journals, and could you say whether or not you think when you get one of his letters, you think he has actually made useful points that have helped you in the formulation of policy?
Prime Minister:
Well, I don’t know if I can answer that question till I have had the focus group. No, seriously, I will tell you what I think. I think that Prince Charles does an amazing job for the country. If you look at the Prince’s Trust it is probably one of the most successful voluntary sector organisations in the world, never mind in this country, and I think he is perfectly entitled to express his views and personally I find no problem with it at all.
Question:
But Lord Falconer said this morning that Prince Charles’ political views do carry some weight. Why should they carry any more weight than anybody else in this country?
Prime Minister:
I find on the things - I don’t want to go into things in great detail - I find that what Prince Charles certainly has talked to me about and written about is exactly what you would expect. I think it is completely unreasonable not to expect that he has views or that he transmits them to government Ministers. But they are not views that I have ever, ever regarded, I have to say, as party-political in that sense at all. You know, for example he will raise issues sometimes to do with the rural community, or issues to do with say voluntary organisations in the UK, which I actually find perfectly helpful and I think you know, you can get a very exaggerated view either of how much this happens. I personally don’t think it has ever caused difficulties for Ministers. I have never found it difficult at all I have to say.
Question:
You spoke of the need to defend democracies, Prime Minister.
Prime Minister:
His last day!
Question:
As well as defending the tea break, you spoke of the need to defend democracies, but Hamas were elected in proper elections. It looks as though the Iranians are now offering to finance Hamas if necessary because the Americans have said they won’t. I know how much time and effort you spend and the expertise you have on the Middle East. What are your plans for the Middle East now, and particularly about Hamas?
Prime Minister:
Well, we do respect the result of the election and that is why, as I have always said we respect absolutely the mandate of Hamas. But the real point that I would make to them is this, if they want our help, which we are anxious to give, in taking forward the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process so that you end up with a proper, independent, viable Palestinian State, if they want our help it has got to be on the basis that they recognise the existence of Israel and embrace a democratic and non-violent path. Because otherwise how can ourselves or the Americans go to the Israelis and say let us sit down and talk about how we make progress with Israel if the other party to the talks is saying we want to eliminate Israel. Now I think that is why the decision lies with Hamas. We perfectly respect the mandate and we give a lot of help in humanitarian terms to the Palestinians, and always have, but if they want our help to carry this process forward we cannot do that unless it is on the basis that they respect the right of Israel to exist, otherwise how do you have a two-state solution if one of the parties to the two-state solution says we don’t want the other state to exist. You cannot do it. And that is the issue and that is why I think it is important to emphasise this, though, because it is something I have discussed on several occasions with the President of the United States and with other leaders in the region. We are anxious, not merely willing, anxious to take forward this process if it is clear the basis upon which everyone is operating, namely a commitment to two states and a commitment to democracy and not violence as the way forward.
Question:
I am not sure if you are familiar with the case of the illegal driver who was involved in a hit and run accident, killed a 3 year old child and was jailed for just 12 weeks. What can government do to ensure that the punishment fits the crime?
Prime Minister:
Well, we have a series of sentencing guidelines now and obviously what we cannot do, and it would be very wrong for us to do, is to interfere with individual court decisions. But the sentencing guidelines should allow courts to express the real public concern over crimes such as this, and although we can’t intervene in individual decisions, the whole idea of setting a series of tariffs and guidelines for courts is so that they can take the very serious crimes very seriously and have penalties that are proper and fit the crime. So I can’t go into the individual case, but that is the whole purpose of the reform we have introduced.
Question:
Prime Minister, there seems to be an anomaly about Guantanamo, that you have an exceptional access to the Bush administration, to the American people and indeed to both Houses of Congress, and yet you are unprepared to use it to demand the closure that you want of Guantanamo. You are not really prepared to use it either to support the endless findings from the UN to your own MPs that there is torture and abuse in Guantanamo, torture in the form of water boarding, and doesn’t this also go hand in hand with your reluctance to fully investigate rendition flights in which it is possible that at least one person, and possibly very many more, has been tortured in a process that had them pass through our air space. Do not all these three issues demand your usage of your special access to demand change of the United States?
Prime Minister:
I actually think Guantanamo fits into a different category and I have got nothing more to say on that, except I think it is clear both what I think and what I think should happen. On rendition, look let me just make one thing clear, because again there is talk about these 200 flights. There is no evidence that I know of that any of these 200 flights have been used for rendition. We have an arrangement with the US where they have to seek permission from us if there is rendition. We have disclosed to parliament the occasion, some years ago I may say, in which that permission has been sought and the circumstances of it. And it is not the case that the Americans say they are deliberately returning people for torture in countries, on the contrary they say they do not return them unless they get assurances about the treatment of those individuals.
But you know no-one has actually asked me specifically about the Amnesty International Report. I don’t diminish any of these issues, I really don’t, but I do just say, we have people for example here in this country that we are trying to deport. Now we hear an immense amount about their human rights and their civil liberties, but there are also the human rights of the rest of us to live in safety, and when people say to me, unless I can give absolutely cast iron guarantees, and they have all sorts of monitoring arrangements, we have got to keep people here who maybe engage actively in inciting terrorism in this country, I have to say I think we have got the world the wrong way round.
Now we will not return anyone to any country unless we get assurances about their treatment, but you cannot have a situation where we are expected to keep people in this country, without any limit at all, irrespective of what they do, and irrespective of the disharmony, disunity and sometimes active violence that they try and incite within our local communities. So in respect of rendition, as I say, before people print yet again that we have had these 200 flights and they are all rendition flights, as far as I am aware there is no evidence to suggest any of them fit into that category, and as I say there is a process and a procedure in place where the Americans ask our permission if they want to rendite. And I am not prepared simply to assume that they are breaching that undertaking, I think it would be very strange if they did. Now in respect of Guantanamo, as you know we got the people back here who are British citizens, the numbers have gone down significantly and I have said what I have said on it.
Question:
But Prime Minister, you argue you can only beat terrorism if you actually do abide by the rule of law, and your own judges, English judges have ruled that it is a legal black hole, it is an illegality and it surely does demand now, 5 years on, your personal action and commitment?
Prime Minister:
Well that assumes that there has been no personal action and commitment on it.
Question:
Would you tell us what you have done?
Prime Minister:
No. What I am going to say is what I have said, it is an anomaly, it should come to an end, we have said that on a number of different occasions, and as I say the British citizens who were there are back here. But you have just got to realise one thing, and I am sorry to have to say it so bluntly to you, I think it is sensible that we always conduct ourselves in a way that achieves the maximum support for our belief in democracy, and liberty and human rights. I do believe that. But you know people devote the most extraordinary amount of time in trying to say that the Americans on rendition are basically deporting people, or returning people to countries for torture, and people spend very little time in actually looking at what the threat is that we face and America faces, from terrorism and how we have to deal with it. And as I say, although I totally understand the issues raised in respect of Guantanamo, if I am right in saying, as I was told, that the report both of the FAC and Amnesty International went far broader, and we are talking about the deportation cases that we have got here, I have just got to say I think we have just got the whole thing upside down.
I do not see why we should not be able to deport people from this country who are not nationals of this country but who have come here to cause trouble, and I will get the best assurances I possibly can, and I believe those assurances will be kept if people return to their own country. But you cannot have a situation where people are just allowed to do whatever they want, and then say we have got to keep them here in this country and we cannot return them. And incidentally there is also in the Amnesty International report there is a case mentioned of a Palestinian, Abu Rideh I think his name is, who has complained of his abuse here and how he wants to go back to Palestine. He is free to go back to Palestine, the issue is whether we are able to remove people from here to other countries who have been engaged in behaviour here that is wholly unacceptable.
Question:
Can I ask you on a matter of principle, do you believe ever that the activities of a Minister’s spouse has anything to do with either their ability to do a job, or their suitability for it?
Prime Minister:
I simply believe that there is a Ministerial Code and it should be kept to.
Question:
Prime Minister, you may not have been briefed yet on a NATO conference yesterday on energy security, which is an issue you have been taking an interest in, but some horrific figures were banded about there that 3 - 4 billion dollars worth of oil is being stolen every year to finance arms buying by criminal cartels, that $1 million worth of oil a day is lost with terrorist action on pipelines. And a senior NATO General said that the security at Europe’s energy installations is absolutely zero, for example at Zebrugger, which handles 11 per cent of the liquid natural gas. How worried are you about the physical security of energy supplies in Europe and do you think this is something that the European Union or the G8 ought to be taking more action on?
Prime Minister:
You are right that I haven’t been briefed on it. I think to be honest Robin the best thing is that I get you a proper considered response on it. I know for our own installations here we do have security measures in place. As for the theft of energy revenues and their use for arms dealing, well I am afraid this is why energy policy is such a major issue now, because we need to have securer supply and we need to make sure that those who are supplying, we have the right relationship with and the right procedures are in place to prevent this type of thing. And part of the trouble is that we are often dependent on energy from some of the least stable parts of the world.
Question:
Prime Minister, what is your view on the campaign, backed by Neil Kinnock, to get rid of miles and replace them with kilometres in this country. And if I may test you, do you know how many kilometres there are in 50 miles?
Prime Minister:
I suppose they told you that before you came in here. It was never my strong point anyway, that type of thing, and I think Alistair Darling has already given the answer to that, which is no, that we are not in favour of that. OK, what is the answer, come on?
Question:
Inaudible.
Question:
If we could talk about globalisation, there is an increasing number of international takeovers, you have got Spanish and Australian companies talking about wanting to run Britain’s airports, you have got a UAE company that wants to take over P & O. There is also a lot of concern about these issues and people are worried about security, and people are worried about their jobs being controlled by overseas companies. How do you balance the security issue and how do you reassure people on that?
Prime Minister:
Well, I think you can do that through the competition and takeover laws in individual countries, which of course take account of the nature of the person who is mounting the takeover. But I don’t think you should ever allow issues like that to become a back door way of sort of protectionism, because I don’t think that is helpful for the world economy.
Question:
My question is regarding America asked for the countries of the region to help to stop the nuclear activity of Iran. Do you agree with that, and what role are you asking these countries, the Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia, to stop the Iranian activity? My second question is regarding the cartoons, which have hurt the feelings of millions of Muslims. We appreciate that the British media have not republished these cartoons, do you think the action of Muslims in countries is acceptable? And my last question, former President Clinton candidates you to be a Secretary for UN, are you thinking about that after you leave your position?
Prime Minister:
No, is the answer to that. On Iran, well what we want is all countries in the international community to make sure that Iran fulfils its international obligations, and that is the important thing. There is a process here in the Atomic Energy Authority and it should be carried out. In respect of the cartoons, look I entirely understand the concern and indeed offence that the cartoons have caused, but obviously any reaction to it has to be proportionate and it has to be peaceful, and I think by and large that is what moderate Muslim opinion has done, and obviously there are some extremists who want to exploit the issue, but we shouldn’t let them exploit it.
Question:
I would like to ask you please whether you have overruled the possibility of any other force than Al Qaeda being involved in the bombing of the al-Askari Shrine, especially in the light of some statements that were made yesterday by leaders of the Islamic Sunnis of Iraq saying that there was a curfew in the area and that they saw many cars coming, some of them think they are involved with the Interior Ministry. So wouldn’t it be possible that another regional power wants to create a civil war in Iraq?
Prime Minister:
I have been through enough situations like this to realise that the conspiracy theories are very dangerous things, and I think we are as well to await the outcome of the investigations. The one thing that is clear is that whoever did it, and maybe that Al Qaeda is the most obvious suspect because they threatened of course to blow it up before, but whoever did it, the purpose was very clear, which was to destroy the possibility of people coming together and forming a democracy, and that is why the best response is to hold firm, and obviously over the next few days it will be very difficult, but then get back to the talks aimed precisely at forming a national unity government, and if that happens that is a major, major step forward for the whole of Iraq and the region.
Question:
Do you accept that you are going to have to make more concessions in order to get your Education Bill through? And specifically are you prepared to lift the veto the Secretary of State would still have on local authorities opening new community schools?
Prime Minister:
No, we have given the reassurance on both selection and the necessary strategic role of the local authorities, and the only reason that the Secretary of State intervenes in the new school procedures is to make sure that whatever competition there is is run fairly. But I do point out, I think last year, secondary schools, there were only 16 new ones, so it is possible to exaggerate the importance of this. But no, if the concerns people had were over local authorities, and there are many local authority leaders now on board for these reforms, or selection where we have given as much reassurance as we possibly can, if those were the concerns they have been dealt with. But the essential freedoms, the freedom of the school to manage its own assets, employ its own staff and have its own freedom and culture, those freedoms have got to remain because they are absolutely central.
Question:
Prime Minister, the Cyprus President, Thasos Papadopoulos is on his way to New York to speak with the UN Secretary General to get the stalled negotiations back on track. Greek and Cypriot Foreign Ministers say there should be no stifling time limit, which the Turkish Cypriot President does not agree with. In the meanwhile a ship carrying the Turkish-Cypriot flag was refused entry into the Turkish port because Turkey says the EU should stop the restrictions to northern Cyprus. Do you feel frustrated about the Cyprus situation, does the British government intend to do anything in the near future on that?
Prime Minister:
Well I think we will feel frustrated because we want to see it resolved, and I think that the Secretary General’s recommendations were the right basis for a negotiated solution and obviously we want to see that because that is in the interests of everyone in Cyprus, and in the interests of Turkey and Greece as well. I don’t know about the particular ship that you are talking about, but I hope obviously that the President of Cyprus has a good and worthwhile meeting.
Question:
But these meetings seem to carry on backwards and forwards. Does the British government intend to do anything that is …
Prime Minister:
Yes, we are working on it the whole time, but everyone has got to want to come to the party if it is going to be successful.
Question:
Just going back to schools for a moment, could you make it absolutely clear once and for all whether you would rather get these reforms into law, thanks to opposition support, than not at all?
Prime Minister:
I have always made it clear I want the reforms through - that is the important thing. The important thing is to do the best for the country and to give this opportunity for the schools to do well. Look, over the next few days what we will be doing is outlining some of the things that local authorities are going to be able to do on the basis of these changes, we will be giving some more details of those external partners that can come in and help schools, we will be trying to show how school federations are already being successful and how these proposals can extend them still further.
The fact is, the great thing about the British education system is that whatever its faults, it simply isn’t true that no part of it works well. The best of the British education system is about the best in the world, and so it is very obvious what works now and what doesn’t, and what works is schools, albeit based on certain rules that mean that you don’t go back to selection by ability and all the rest of it, but that the schools have the freedom and independence to develop in the best way for the pupils in their area. And what I would say to people for example about the City Academy programme is the best thing frankly is not to listen to me or to the opponents of City Academies, but go and talk to the parents who are sending their kids there. Because these are schools that on the whole used to be hugely under-subscribed and are now on the whole over-subscribed. And when I was talking for example to the leader of Hackney Council, the Mayor of Hackney Council, the other day, they want actually to move virtually all of their secondary schools to that type of situation and that is for a very, very good reason, they think it works.
Question:
On that point, you said that you thought it was sustainable, as far as I can understand you said the important thing is to get this reform through. Do you think it is sustainable for you to remain in office when a piece of flagship legislation is passed with the help of an opposition party? And could I ask you one other thing, on this phrase anomaly that you use continually about Guantanamo Bay, I looked up the description of anomaly and it means something that is out of the ordinary or abnormal. It is therefore entirely descriptive, it has no moral judgment involved in it whatsoever. Do you think it is sustainable to have that kind of descriptive view of Guantanamo Bay rather than a moral one?
Prime Minister:
I think I have said what I have said on Guantanamo. And on the first part, you know if you look at the school system at the moment, for all the improvements, and they are considerable, the fact is you have still got kids in schools where fewer than 30 per cent of the kids get 5 good GCSEs. It is not acceptable. That means the majority of those kids are leaving school, which they usually do, aged 16 without 5 good GCSEs, never mind 5 good GCSEs including English and maths. Now what we have done in the programmes we have introduced up to now has taught us certain lessons, that these schools do better if they have greater freedoms that they use imaginatively, they do better if they get external help, as specialist schools and city academies do, and they do better if they have a situation where the teachers at the school feel genuinely empowered to make the right changes for their school. Now that is what we are trying to do. So in the end the most important thing is to do the right thing for the country.
Question:
… and you will stay in No 10, do you get the Bill through on the second reading without the support of your own side, you have to depend on opposition support to get it through.
Prime Minister:
What do you mean, I should get the legislation through and say now I think I should quit? No, I don’t think that is very sensible Patrick.
Question:
Prime Minister, I wanted to ask you about a recent independent investigation led by Lord Carlisle. According to this investigation an unacceptable level of pain is being used to restrain children in secure custody. The inquiry found that physical force was used against youngsters, 15,512 times during a 12-month period in England and Wales. We know that the majority of children who end up in secure custody already come from a background of violence and abuse. My question is, has the government given attention to this investigation, and what is it going to do to stop the abuse happening?
Prime Minister:
Well we give very serious attention to it, we certainly do, and it is why we are looking at how we make sure that we tighten up the procedures for these children. But I think there is a whole bigger question as well, which is how we find different and better ways of helping children from a very early age who are clearly going to need an awful lot of support when they are older. But yes of course we take the report very seriously indeed.
So what I think is interesting, and of course when you are the government, especially in a third term, people get disappointed and you have to listen to those concerns of course very, very deeply indeed, but the most important thing is to get your policy agenda in place and to argue for it, and of course you will find it difficult. Look it is like the Health Service at the moment, you have got bad stories appearing on various aspects of it, but actually underneath what is happening is that the whole of the National Health Service is being reshaped and changed in a very fundamental way that I have got no doubt at all within the next two or three years people will say well look whatever else you say, the whole issue to do with waiting and access within the National Health Service has been resolved as an issue, and that is the issue basically that was the critical thing when we came to power. But in the meantime you will have hospitals complaining about they don’t have enough money, you will have deficits appearing, you will have consultants saying they don’t like this change or that change, you will have people ganging up and saying the independent sector should have nothing to do with the Health Service. You will have all these things going on, and all of them cause difficulty and we know there are always difficulties in a by-election in this situation, but in the end the most important thing is to hold firm to what we think are the right policies for the country and that is the best way to do it. I also think it is very obvious incidentally in that particular by-election - so people tell me at any rate - that there were significant local issues that played a part.
Question:
Jack McConnell has suggested that the time for keeping his nose out of Westminster’s business in terms of reserve matters is now over, and that increasingly he will not hold back from commenting on reserve matters. What do you feel about that?
Prime Minister:
I think the most important thing for the Scottish Executive, and this is what I will be saying tomorrow, is that actually when on each occasion they have taken difficult decisions, for example as they have done now in the National Health Service in Scotland, and I think there are figures are out, is it today the figures are out on the six month waiting that they have achieved, and that in the end will see them through and that is the best thing. And of course it is always difficult in a coalition, but I think that is a matter for the Scottish Executive. And look the issue is always going to be, not whether Jack speaks on reserve matters, of course he is perfectly entitled to speak on reserve matters, obviously in the end the decisions are taken on a UK-wide basis, that is why the issues are reserve. But I have always had a very, very good and easy working relationship with the Scottish Executive, and sometimes we don’t look at the big picture enough. So I think the UK is stronger and I personally don’t find any problem at all if Jack speaks on this or that reserve matter, and I have always found that he does it with the necessary respect obviously for the constitutional settlement.
Question:
Prime Minister, is there speculation that in the right to self-determination, maybe mentioned in the new Gibraltar constitution, and the Spanish … seem to be very happy about that. Are you in favour of the right to have self-determination to be included in that constitution? And my second question, is the idea of joint sovereignty completely dead?
Prime Minister:
I think you are going to get a very diplomatic answer on this, which is that there are talks going on between the UK and Spain which are perfectly amicable and they will just continue. But we have always made it clear of course that the wishes of the people of Gibraltar have got to be respected.
Question:
We reported this week the comments of the Bishop of Durham, who warned of the creation of a 1984 style society, thought police enforcing thought crimes, he said people in his diocese - which includes Sedgefield - were too afraid to express controversial opinions down the pub on subjects such as homosexuality for fear of questioning by the police. How concerned are you that your local bishop thinks you are overseeing the creation of a totalitarian society?
Prime Minister:
Actually I didn’t know he had said that. Is that an accurate reflection?
Question:
Yes, in our paper.
Prime Minister:
Look, in any other paper I might be suspicious, but in the Northern Echo, it is the proper paper of record. I think it is possible to overdo this you know, if you don’t mind me saying so respectfully to the Bishop. Certainly it is a well and time honoured tradition of Bishops of Durham speaking out, but I notice, I have to say, and maybe this is just because I am Prime Minister, but I notice no shortage of people being able to dissent on whatever basis they want, usually expressed in fairly voluble terms. And I don’t think people feel afraid to speak their mind on various issues. Obviously what is important sometimes is that people take account of the feelings of others when they speak their mind, that is why you have laws on racial prejudice and so on.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
Well, people can say what they think about it, but I happen to be in favour of live and let live on that and always have been. So I don’t really think it is a great restriction on people. I am amazed it wasn’t bigger news actually, what the Bishop of Durham said. Not enough people here read the Northern Echo.
Question:
I want to ask you about inheritance tax, which as I am sure you know is a major issue for the Express at the moment, and you will be getting the postbag next week. Rising house prices mean that 1 in 3 homes fall over the threshold for inheritance tax and a lot of those are the hard working families that you have talked so often about. Isn’t it time that the government looked at following the example of modernising economies like the USA, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and abolish this tax which falls not just on the super rich, but on ordinary hard working people who have spent their lives saving?
Prime Minister:
I think I am right in saying that since 1997 we have at least been raising it in line with inflation, if not more so.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
Well I think certainly in the last couple of budgets, but I will have a look back.
Question:
You may have in the last couple of budgets, but not in line with inflation, and certainly not house price inflation.
Prime Minister:
Ah but house price inflation is slightly different. But the basic issue is this, I forget the exact amount we get in from inheritance tax, but I think it is in excess of £2 billion, so you have to work out where you get that money. So there you go. And you have to also say where that money is going to come from, because otherwise that is money that goes out of your coffers.
Question:
Unmanned stations are putting off passengers from travelling, particularly at night. Do you think train companies should do more to improve security at stations?
Prime Minister:
I think there is a very good case for having people at stations, security people at stations, I really do, because I think quite apart from anything else, it is the same issue as having a visible uniformed presence out on the street, which is why I am so strongly in favour of neighbourhood policing being rolled out across London obviously it is happening, but across the whole country. And I think there is a very strong case for having security guards at stations because I think quite apart from anything else it gives people a greater sense of security and safety.
Question:
Prime Minister, can you actually confirm after you visited Germany I believe last week that you are getting along with the new German Chancellor much better than the previous one, and that there is actually evolving something like a special British-German relationship?
Prime Minister:
Well I had a very good set of meetings with Chancellor Merkel and the relationship is working extremely well, but I say that in no disrespect to her predecessor, as you would think. And I think the important thing about Europe at the moment is that although obviously I would like to see it move quicker in the reform direction, I think it is basically moving in the reform direction. For example the Services Directive, again I would have gone a lot further, but nonetheless the fact is it will significantly improve the opportunity to open up the European markets, and on all these things, and on energy policy particularly, we are going to work closely with the new German government.
Question:
And is it a special UK-German relationship?
Prime Minister:
It is a strong relationship, but it is like when people say to me do you want to have the relationship with Germany that France has, countries have their different relationships and the important thing is that there exists a common basis of both understanding and policy, and we have got that. And I think the relationship with Germany is working extremely well, but none of that means I am not anxious also to have good relations with other countries, and that is the only way that Europe at 25 can work now.
Question:
Prime Minister, would you be prepared yourself to meet the leadership of Hamas to try and persuade them of the need to pursue a two-state solution and see if there is any way that you could carry on the programme of, for want of a better umbrella term, good governance that you were looking for when we were in Ramallah in 2004 and you announced that programme to help the Palestinian Authority to get on its feet, acknowledging that in the absence of any constructive dialogue, something much more malign might come in to replace it?
Prime Minister:
I think that would cause confusion and it would make it appear as if we were prepared to try to find a way forward without Hamas renouncing its desire to eliminate Israel. So I don’t think that would be sensible, but it gives me an opportunity to state once again that if Hamas do make that historic decision, we are not just prepared but keen, enthusiastic, to take this process forward. And there is every chance it can be taken forward successfully incidentally, but it has got to be on a basis that is clear, otherwise it just won’t work.
Question:
My question regards a subject that doesn’t come up in these venues very often, it is about the huge demographic change that faces Europe as the baby boom generation begins to retire. Your own four children will be having to support probably at least two old aged pensioners, and that doesn’t count you or the missus.
Prime Minister:
They are not that keen, I may say, but anyway.
Question:
My question, Sir, is do you believe governments in Europe should be working to encourage larger families or is that some sort of a state intervention that really should be left up to individuals.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
What did you say Michael?
Question:
I was encouraging you to give a frank and full answer Prime Minister.
Prime Minister:
Well I have done my bit - four - that is very good.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
Yes. I don’t think you can do this artificially - sorry about that - it is certainly preferable not to. Right, thank you very much, OK. No, it is not something I think that government can enforce, but it is obviously one of the purposes of having for example proper childcare policies and enabling with better maternity rights and so on, enabling families to balance work and children, that is one way which makes it easier for people to have larger families, which I think is a good thing. But I think on any basis the frank truth is that Europe’s pension systems are going to have to be reformed, and they are going to have to be reformed pretty radically.
Now that is the reason why we set up the Turner Commission, it has reported, on the basis of its report we will take forward legislation as I say in the next parliamentary session. But right round Europe people are coming to the same conclusion. And the answer doesn’t just lie in more taxpayers’ money because the answer has also got to lie, indeed principally lie in people making provision for their own security. Now the problem certainly in the UK, but also in other European countries, has been that there hasn’t been the ability, the right vehicles for people to go and save for their retirement, so that is the reason for the pension reform. And there are two aspects to it, and a lot of attention has focused on what happens to the basic state pension, but the other aspect is the reform of the private pension provision which is going to be dramatically important, particularly with occupational pensions closing. So there we go. I think that is it.
delicious
digg
facebook
