The Prime Minister held a press conference at Downing Street today (20 June). Mr Blair began by briefing journalists on the Seville European Council before going on to take questions.
Read the transcript of the press conference in full below
Prime Minister:
Good Morning everyone. As you know, we announced recently, I do regular news conferences and this is the first of what will become regular opportunities for question and answer sessions on anything you want to ask.
I wanted to say a few words, however, first about the upcoming Seville Council. The main item on the agenda will be asylum and immigration and we need to show at Seville that those of us meeting around the Council table are not only aware of the practical concerns that our citizens have in Europe over the issues of asylum and immigration, but we can agree at least some common practical action to tackle them.
If we don’t, my fear is that we leave the field open for those who don’t want to solve these problems but simply want to exploit them. It is one thing to speak out against extremist parties in Europe, but speaking out is meaningless frankly if it is not backed up by practical steps to tackle the underlying issues that the extremists are exploiting.
The truth is that international organised crime is running sophisticated global people trafficking and exploitation rackets on an unprecedented scale, and although of course we have got an obligation, indeed are taking action at a national level, some of these problems can only be tackled properly on an international basis.
I think most people in this country are tolerant and they know it is right to give a haven to people genuinely fleeing persecution. They know that we need, and indeed should value, migrants who add to our economic well-being. I think it is not that people are anti-immigrant or anti-asylum seeker, but I think they are anti-disorder, they are anti a system that doesn’t appear to have proper rules to it, and that is what we have to address both at national and at European level. It has to be a system that tackles illegal immigration, fosters legal migration and preserves our proud tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing persecution in their own country.
Let me highlight three ways that we can try to tackle this at a European level, because that is what will be the main point of our discussions tomorrow and on Saturday.
First, a common asylum policy. If we have uniform rules for claims throughout the European Union we level up the playing field and end the asylum shopping that is a feature of the current system, and that means for example minimum standards for asylum seekers, efficient rules on which country should consider each asylum claim, because it is our belief that the present Dublin Convention isn’t working properly, and it also allows us to iron out differences in how we apply the Geneva rules, the international rules, on refugee status. So that is the first thing, a common asylum policy.
Secondly, a stronger external European Union border, and here we have to work together, we have to exchange personnel and technical expertise in order to make sure that the key transit points in what is an ever growing border do not allow this exploitation of people to continue.
And thirdly, we need a new approach to source countries, we need to see questions of asylum and immigration in the wider context of our overall relationship with countries whose nationals try to enter the European Union. We should make it clear that we can deepen that relationship in terms of trade, in terms of political dialogue, but we do want those countries to work with us in partnership in order to tackle what is a common problem.
And let me stress that as far as European Union aid is concerned, we are not talking about anything whatsoever that would run counter to the fundamental aim of poverty reduction, indeed I would argue that tackling the poverty and instability of these countries includes helping remove some of the factors that encourage people to emigrate, and many of these countries of course actually need their skilled people back in their own country helping them.
So through these and other measures, which I hope we will agree at Seville, we will address in a concrete and constructive way an issue that is of very real concern for the citizens of Europe.
Before turning to questions, I just want to mention briefly two other areas that we will discuss at Seville - enlargement and Council reform. Seville should, if all goes right, mark the start of the last lap on enlargement and it is an extraordinary thing to reflect, this, but I don’t think people could have thought this possible a few years ago, but we will have in 2004 in all likelihood 10 new countries joining the European Union.
We should just let it sink it in as to how great a difference that is going to make to the European Union, that will mean a European Union of 25 different countries, it will have huge implications for the way that we make policy within the European Union, and I am determined to see them conclude their accession negotiations by the end of this year.
As part of that we are of course heavily engaged in The Future of Europe Convention at the moment, but we will also be agreeing I hope at Seville on Friday a package of practical measures to improve the way that the European Council works. The German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, and I set out our ideas in a letter back in February and they included shorter summits with more strategic discussions, cutting down the numbers of subjects, specific Councils, and opening up Council’s work to the gaze of television so that citizens can see Ministers taking decisions about legislation. And I hope that in all these areas Seville will show that the European Union is taking the concerns of its citizens seriously and taking concrete steps to address them.
As with all the rest of the discussions in Europe at the moment, I think what is interesting again is that Britain is very much at the forefront of the European debate. I think now across economic reform, defence, enlargement, institutional reform, asylum and immigration, this country is both setting the agenda and occupying a leadership position in Europe that I think is immensely important for the future, and I hope it again proves the advantage of constructive engagement over isolation.
Question:
Can I start off by asking whether you accept that your government does face a question of trust at the moment, and if you do, who is to blame for that?
Prime Minister:
I think the most important thing for us is to do the things that people know need putting right in the country, and the best answer to issues of trust or people’s concern about politics and the political process is to
show that politics makes a difference, is to show that for example in the economic policies and the changes we have made, is to show that in getting our people back to work, and we have got the highest level of employment this country has ever had, we have slashed hugely the amount of unemployment. In public services we need to show people that the money we are putting in is going to make a difference, that the Health
Service money is accompanied by reform, that the education reforms will go forward. In issues like criminal justice we need to show that we are really getting down to the problems that have bedevilled our system for many, many decades. And then I think we had an interesting example yesterday of the inter-relationship between politics and the real world in the lobby there was at Parliament by groups campaigning on behalf of Third World countries. I think it would be hard to dispute the fact that this country has taken the leading role in that whole issue over the past few years and made a real difference. I have seen for myself the lives of people transformed by the aid and development programmes of this country. I see Ken Reid there from Northern Ireland, I would say I believe that the process of peace in Northern Ireland, whatever the difficulties, have made big changes over the past few years. The best answer to all the stuff that flows in and flows out is to get the job done and that is what we should do.
Question:
Isn’t it obvious though, Prime Minister, that what has happened is that your techniques of spin and media presentation which served you so well to begin with, have now backfired, you held on to them for too long, and it is one of the reasons why according to the latest opinion poll a majority of voters don’t trust you?
Prime Minister:
Yes, but the polls they come and they go, and in the end what matters is getting the job done. People in the country will judge any government by what actually happens. When we set out our programme 5 years ago, what did we say, we said we would make the economy strong, we said we would get people back to work, we said we would have a programme of investment and reform in public services, we said we would be tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime and we would end the country’s isolation in Europe.
Now I would argue to you passionately, strongly, that we have made progress in all those areas. I think five years in you would have to say on the first two I think that most people would give us that on the first two, on the strong economy and on unemployment.
I think on public services I think that most people would give us that there have been improvements in education and I think increasingly actually you can notice improvements in health. Transport is a huge problem for all the reasons that we know. On criminal justice, well again I think you can see, I had a long meeting this morning with police officers and others and Ministers from across the whole field in crime, I think there is a sense there that there is a clear direction and purpose that is giving certainly those people within the system the sense for the first time in years that the government is prepared to legislate in the way they need to get the system working together, and I think you can already see from the early returns on the street crime initiative that it can make a difference. And on Europe, well I have said what I have said on that. I think whatever we may think, or you may think, is important in the day to day that it is the big picture that matters.
Question:
But what about spin then?
Prime Minister:
Yes but in the end, what about it? The substance is what will decide.
The verdict that people will make is a verdict based on their experience and I think all of that is shown by the experience of the last few years.
And I think one other thing that is interesting about this is, obviously we are operating in one sense in a climate where if you like I don’t notice some big argument coming towards us from the opposition, the only big argument I notice is on Europe, but that is not an argument they really want to have at the moment for perfectly understandable internal reasons.
On the rest of it I don’t feel myself faced, you know when I am sitting there in Prime Minister’s Questions or I am getting quizzed even by you guys, there is no-one out there saying right here is the alternative policy agenda, why aren’t you doing this. I don’t notice that.
And therefore I think almost inevitably a lot of this focuses on the stuff it has focused on in the past few weeks because there isn’t that big policy debate there. And yet I am sure for the country out there in the end it is the policy debate that matters.
Question:
Do you not think whether people trust you and your Ministers or think you are habitual liars is actually a big issue?
And also on the specifics of The Queen Mother’s Funeral, do you now admit that it was a mistake to go to the Press Complaints Commission and do you stand by, or apologise for, the allegations of your Director of Communications at the time that the reports were malicious and politically motivated and without any basis of foundation?
Prime Minister:
Certainly of course I stand by exactly what was said on that all the way throughout.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
I stand by everything we said on this, but again I would just say to youthat if you look at the absolute acres that have been written on this, I just think the sensible thing is to say look you guys have got your job to do, I have got mine to do, and in the end what matters are the things that matter to people.
And if you go back, if you were to look at my diary for the last few weeks and see the things that I have been doing and concentrating upon, I think and hope that they are the things that people would expect me to concentrate upon, and in the end it is up to all of us in our own different way to decide what we believe is important. And the notion that the great British public out there are debating the ins and outs of Black Rod and all the rest of it, out there what they are worried about are jobs and the economy, schools, hospitals, crime, the things that you would expect them to be worried about. And therefore what is important for us, however much you want to draw me into another discussion of this, what is important for us and for me is to concentrate on those issues.
Question:
It is very important, I just want to ask you again, you are saying that you believe the Spectator, the London Standard and the Mail on Sunday were malicious and politically motivated in writing that story?
Prime Minister:
Look, what I have said on this I said and I stick by, but to be absolutely blunt about it, if you look at the great sweep of history, the success of this government is not going to be determined by that, it is going to be determined by whether we do the things on the economy, jobs, health, schools, crime that people want us to do.
And the most important thing for us the entire time, whatever comes in and out of the newspapers on a daily basis, is to concentrate on those big issues because those are the things that matter to people. And I am not saying that these other issues, because they occupy a lot of headline space, don’t make an impact, I am not saying that, I am simply saying that in the end if you ask me what gets me up in the morning it is not worrying about that, it is worrying about the things I have been talking about.
Question:
On that big issue, one of the big issues facing the country is obviously Europe, isn’t there a danger that the lack of trust which appears to be in you at the moment, and also the war you are having with the press, will make it much more difficult for you to turn public opinion on the euro if you do decide at some future point that the tests have been met?
And on a specific if I may on Seville, you have talked a lot about the insecurities at the moment, people are worried about immigration, it is making people feel insecure, but isn’t there a danger in trying to meet the arguments of the right, as you said earlier you wanted to do, that you are actually moving on to their ground and trying to build a fortress Europe which is precisely what they want. But the euro first, if I may.
Prime Minister:
No, I think that people will treat the euro on its merits. And I also think, we all of us here have been doing these things for the last five years, there are times in the last Parliament when I have had very similar questions put to me and in the end people come back to a judgment on the real issues.
Question:
But it hasn’t happened like this before in terms of lack of trust.
Prime Minister:
Well you say that, I remember at the time, I think it was the fuel protest, we actually went behind in the opinion polls for a time and there were all sorts of opinion polls. Maybe I am misremembering it, but I think this happens, it is just part of politics, there is no point in getting worked up or upset about it.
Question:
Why are you doing this then, it is not because you are worried because you are trying to get round us and over us to speak to the people.
Prime Minister:
I think it is a bit unfair to say I am trying to get round you, I have got you all here in the room, for God’s sake. Anyway, to deal with the other point, on the right wing agenda, no I really disagree with this. I think that the populists and extremists gain a purchase on the political system when the moderate politicians, centre right or centre left, fail to deal with the issues properly. And I think if we don’t get it on issues like asylum and street crime then we create the space for the extremists to operate.
The truth is that the asylum system is not working, let’s be absolutely open about that, it is not working in any of the main countries around the world at the moment because asylum systems were set up in the aftermath of the Second World War when for perfectly understandable reasons we had just been through the most terrible terrible period in the history of the world and the persecution of Jewish people, and as a result of that asylum systems came into being with that in their mind.
What we have today is a completely different situation where you have got people who are really economic migrants, and they are not bad people to be economic migrants, but the fact is they often won’t be able to come into the country through the proper channel of migration and therefore are claiming asylum instead.
And so what we are doing in the action that we are taking, the legislation that we are proposing, the extra measures we are taking, is to make sure that we restore what I would call integrity to the system, which is to say very clearly, and this is where we differ from the populist right, yes we want proper legally managed migration, yes economic immigrants who come in in the proper way according to the rules can play a great part in building our country and many other countries, but we need to have a system with proper rules that are fair so that the people that get in are those that deserve to get in, not those that play the system better or are paying sums of money to organised criminal gangs. And you know I am convinced of this, that if we don’t tackle these issues, that is where the populist right gain.
Question:
Your Director of Communications has spoken of moving into a new era of presentation, basically admitting that in the past there was too much spin, the idea of moving into a new area would perhaps be more recognised if there was an acceptance here in No 10 that in the past there has been too much, do you believe that on occasions in the past there was too much emphasis on spin and presentation?
Prime Minister:
Look, all governments are going to try and present their policy, and we live in a 24 hour media world, but what I do think, as I said earlier and I have really got nothing much more to add to it, is that in the end it is substance that is important and the public knows that and we know that, and I think you know it too, is the honest truth.
Question:
You spoke about people being anti-disorder on the asylum issue, so what would you say to the people for example of Worcestershire, Oxfordshire and Nottinghamshire who are fearful of asylum camps being built where they live, especially in view of what their local MPs are saying, which is that if these camps go ahead there will be violence in the countryside?
Prime Minister:
Well I don’t believe that is the case, but I do say to people we either deal with this issue or we don’t deal with it. People can’t say at one and the same time they want government to deal with this issue but we are going to refuse the only possible way of dealing with it, which is to process the claims quickly, to make sure that we can keep a check on the people who are claiming asylum and then to remove them quickly if their claims fail.
Now the reason why, our asylum system incidentally has had huge improvements over the last couple of years, which is why we have cleared to a very large extent the backlog of cases, we are processing the claims more quickly, we have actually got the highest removal rate anywhere in Europe, although it is not nearly high enough but it is higher than I think virtually any other country, and incidentally it is not even true that in the overall level of claims today, I think Germany is back ahead of Britain again and proportionately we are somewhere round about the middle of the table, so we are not alone in this.
But all the evidence that we have is that the only way that you can tackle this problem is that people need to know that if they are claiming asylum, and it is not really a genuine claim, their claim is going to get processed and they are going to be removed quickly and the centres are essential for that. So I totally understand, why people will say that I want them anywhere else but where I am, but the fact is that unless we manage to take these measures we can’t tackle this problem.
And we have looked at this every which way and you come back to that simple basic point that you have to be able to keep track of the people coming in and you have to have the facility for deciding their claims quickly and removing them.
Question:
Given the high levels of public cynicism, in the spirit of David Blunkett are there any mistakes that you would like to own up to?
Prime Minister:
I am sure there are lots of mistakes that I could own up to but I slightly take the view that they are for me to know and you guys to find out, but you seem to be very adept at doing that anyway.
I don’t know, I suppose it is bound to happen, the media and politicians go through this from time to time together and there is a sort of Westminster Village, isn’t there, about all this, but I do believe that once you have gone through whatever scratchiness arises from time to time, as I say you have got your job to do and I have got mine and I have got to get on with doing it and in the end it is for people to make a judgment, they are going to have to make a judgment about me and about the government but they don’t make that judgment a year into the government, they make it come election time, and I hope that by the time of the next election we will have shown to people that the problems that they wanted us to tackle we have tackled and that we have done it in the right way.
And what would worry me a lot more is, as I say, if I felt there was some great counter-argument, policy argument coming out, you know here is a big alternative vision, but I don’t see it, maybe it is there, but I think that the mood of most of the country is to say yes we agree with what you are saying but please get on and do it.
Question:
Prime Minister, you say that when you look out there all you can see coming from the opposition is Europe and that is the debate they don’t want to have, but isn’t it in truth the debate you don’t want to have? You are hiding surely behind the five tests rather than telling us why you want Britain to join the euro. What is it in your own philosophy, your own vision, that makes you want us to join the euro and why won’t you talk about it?
Prime Minister:
But I do talk about it, I am very happy to talk about it now. The reasons why we are in principle in favour of joining the euro are because if the euro is successful and if it is in our economic interests to join then it is going to be good for British industry, for British jobs, for British investment.
And I believe that Britain’s destiny, as I have said on many occasions, is as a leading player in Europe. I think part of the problem is that people want us sometimes to devalue the economic tests, but we won’t do that because those tests are vital.
It is an economic union that you are joining and therefore the economics is not an incidental, it is fundamental and it has got to be right, so those tests have got to be passed and the passing of the test is a precondition for us making the recommendation. But I think that our position in Europe has been transformed from where it was a few years ago.
And this country has a fantastic opportunity. I think one thing, as you know I travel from time to time, as some of you have been kind enough to point out, and what is fascinating is that when you go to other countries and you see how they view this country today, people think this is a great country.
Question:
But I am talking about the euro, Prime Minister?
Prime Minister:
Yes but I am talking about the euro, and what I was just going to go on to say is that the very reason why we should be there in Europe as a leading player is because we are in fact a strong country, a great country that is doing well, and us being at the centre of Europe is part of that. Now on the euro, as I say there is no point in trying to get me to undermine the economic tests because I won’t because they are vital and they are important and I believe in them.
I don’t believe incidentally that they are neither here nor there and some people say they are just political window dressing, they are not, those tests of economic convergence are real, if you are going to merge your currency with other currencies you need to know that there is sustainable economic convergence and that is why the tests matter. But provided that the tests are passed, the political will, again I think I have said on numerous occasions over the past few weeks even, the economic tests are passed, we put it to the British people in a referendum.
Question:
Can you tell us when?
Prime Minister:
No, because we have said that the tests will be assessed within the first two years of the Parliament and when that assessment is made we will, if it is positive, put the case to the British people and we shouldn’t and don’t need to be any more specific than that.
Question:
You make great play of the fact that this is a great country and it is seen as such around the world and one of the great strengths of your government has been your stewardship of the economy. Can you tell us why you are prepared to put that economy at risk, because joining the euro would be a gamble? And secondly, can you say if you have not held and won a referendum and taken Britain into the euro by the end of this Parliament, will you consider that a failure of your leadership?
Prime Minister:
On the first, of course what we have achieved is economic stability here and one of the issues therefore is do we enhance that stability by membership of the single currency, and that is precisely why the tests of economic convergence are important. So if we decided to join the
euro, it would be precisely because we believed that would enhance our stability in terms of our trade, in terms of industry, in terms of people’s living standards here. And secondly, well it depends if the economic tests are passed as to whether it is the right thing to do or not for us.
But I think that over the past few years we have shown what can be gained for Britain by positive engagement in Europe. If you look at any of the big debates going on in Europe at the moment they are moving our way, they are either with us or moving our way, and that is because we have put aside the sort of euro-scepticism that I think is self-defeating.
And in the end if you want to be a Eurosceptic the most intelligent position is to be out actually, because there is no point in being in if you spend your entire time while you are in the European Union complaining about it, you have got to get in there and win the argument, and I sometimes think there was a sort of failure of national confidence about Europe at one point where we just sort of thought well you know the French and Germans decide everything, we have just got to go along behind, what can we do. It is nonsense. As we have shown time and time again, people respond to Britain’s leadership provided it is put in a sensible and sure footed way and I hope we have done that in the last few years.
Question:
If you say that you are doing so well in maintaining Britain’s influence in Europe, why do we then need to take the extra step and join the euro if you are already succeeding?
Prime Minister:
The sort of implication though, is why should we want to do something that we don’t want to do when we are doing fine without doing it. But my point to you is that we should want to do it if the economic tests are passed because it is the right thing for us to do economically as well as politically.
Question:
Prime Minister, you have made progress in Northern Ireland, there is no doubt about that, but there are considerable problems at the moment.
First of all the Pat Finuken revelations last night, surely there is anoverwhelming case now for an independent international inquiry into what went on in the Finuken killing and others. And secondly, with David Trimble threatening to walk away, are you prepared to take sanctions against Sinn Fein if paramilitary activity continues?
Prime Minister:
On the first point, we are awaiting the report of Sir John Stevens, and also Mr Justice Corrie, as you know, has been appointed as the Judge, a highly respected international judge, who will decide what is the best way to proceed.
But we are determined to get to the bottom of these issues and lay them to rest. As for the second part, I think that the worry of the Ulster Unionists is simply this, and it is a worry that has to be addressed, their worry is that yes the situation in Northern Ireland is far better than it was 5 or 6 years ago, yes the IRA are on cease-fire, but do the IRA believe that there is a certain level of violence that we have decided as a government, and the process has decided as a process, to tolerate, and the answer to that has got to be no.
So what I say to people is we understand in a process of transition that you leave violence behind totally over time. What we need to make sure of is that that is understood by everybody because the process is not sustainable long term, or even medium term, if you have political parties in government connected with paramilitary groups and those paramilitary groups aren’t truthfully committed exclusively to democratic means.
Question:
But could confidence, particularly in the Unionist community, grow any lower than it is at the moment, because we are in an election year and actually the implications of that are quite serious.
Prime Minister:
Yes they are, and that is why we have to address those concerns, but that is one of the reasons why myself and the Taoiseach have said that we will go over and talk to people again. I would just say through you once more though to people in Northern Ireland, it is very easy for us to forget what has been gained, and again I think anybody who went back to Northern Ireland today and the last time they had visited was 10 years ago, what a difference they would notice - two thirds of Northern Ireland without troop movements, despite these terrible problems in parts of Belfast. Most of Belfast you walk around it as you would walk around Glasgow, or Liverpool or Manchester.
Unemployment, which used to be the highest in Northern Ireland of any part of the UK, has fallen by more than any other part of the UK, inward investment coming in. And how many people are there walking around alive today who otherwise would be dead but for the peace process. And of all the processes going on around the world at the moment this has been probably one of the most successful, but it is under strain at the moment, there is a fundamental question we have to confront and we will confront it, and you are right we have to confront it bearing in mind that the public will need to be persuaded of these things by the time they go to the polls next year.
Question:
At the beginning of the press conference you admitted that transport was still an area of major concern. Which of the six Transport Secretaries of State you have appointed, from John Prescott down to Stephen Byers, do you blame for failing to get to grips with this vital policy area?
Prime Minister:
First of all I would point out that actually the Heads of Department there has been John Prescott and Stephen Byers and Alistair Darling.
There are Transport Ministers underneath those obviously who have changed, but I don’t think that is the issue. The issue is perfectly simple in transport, perfectly simple. You have had a combination of three things, you have had gross under-investment in the transport infrastructure over a number of years, I don’t think there is anybody who would dispute that.
Question:
Including in the first few years of your term?
Prime Minister:
It certainly wasn’t as much as we would like, but then we said education would be the number one priority and that is where we put the money. But we are now committed to substantial additional sums of investment in transport.
The second reason is that you have had a 20% increase in usage, I think this point isn’t very well understood, a 20% increase in usage on road, on rail and on the tube, in fact tube slightly more than 20%, now that is partly because of the strength of the economy, but in other words you have had a huge additional pressure on the system. And the third reason is that rail privatisation, you can argue about whether privatisation was right or wrong, but to privatise in this way was obviously bad, it was a mistake in the structure that was put in place.
Now all of those things have taken some dealing with, and in particular in relation to the railways, what was apparent after Hatfield was that there were fundamental problems with the track that had not been addressed and those had to be addressed and they have meant that, although I think it is true to say incidentally that I think rail punctuality and reliability has improved in the last 6 months over the previous 6 months, it is nonetheless the case that there is still a lot of work going on just to recover and deal with the faulty track. So it will take time to do and there is no quick fix at all.
Question:
How does allowing Cabinet Ministers to make almost hysterical attacks on the media help you to sell your message to the British people, where does the insanity lie there?
Prime Minister:
Maybe we should take time out in each other’s hysteria, if you put it like that. I think the most important thing, as I said to you before, is I wouldn’t place too much significance on any remarks but just get back to making policy, I think that is what in the end your readers want to know about and we want to talk about.
Question:
They are all talking about it, David Blunkett’s attack yesterday was completely overshadowing a policy announcement.
Prime Minister:
Let’s talk about it then, so get your policy question and then we will deal with it.
Question:
Why do you think you should be taken seriously when you call for a negotiated settlement in Kashmir, when within recent months your government has been authorising sales of rockets, bombs, missiles to both sides in the conflict?
Prime Minister:
Because the idea that we should shut down our defence industry in those circumstances I find absolutely bizarre.
Question:
Yes, but you could shut them down to those particular combatants, couldn’t you?
Prime Minister:
Yes, but the fact of the matter is that that is not what is stimulating the conflict in Kashmir, what is stimulating the conflict in Kashmir are the sources of that conflict that we know about. And the idea that the reason why you have got this conflict in Kashmir is that both sides have got British weapons, honestly it is not the case.
What is the case is that we have worked extremely hard to bring the two sides together and the only basis we are going to resolve that, I have no doubt at all, is on the basis of Pakistan ceasing completely and absolutely its support for terrorism in Kashmir, or indeed exported from Kashmir, and the Indian government recognising that if that is the case it is sensible to offer dialogue on all the issues so that we can resolve what are pressing and difficult questions through that bilateral dialogue between the two sides. Now that is what we have been aiming to do and I think Jack Straw, if I may say so, made a very very successful and very timely visit to India and Pakistan to achieve it and I think the arms sales issue is a bit of a canard really.
Question:
Mr Blair, I pay a lot of British taxes and I don’t mind paying taxes for hospitals and schools but I was surprised to see that my taxes are going to support a lot of The Queen’s cousins who live in palaces for almost nothing. Can you explain the principle of why it is fair that working people should subsidise a lavish lifestyle for these folks because they were born in The Queen’s family?
Prime Minister:
Now you are an American, aren’t you, but I think I am going to beat a diplomatic silence on that particular one if I may say so.
Question:
Why?
Prime Minister:
Why, because I think it is probably the sensible thing to do in all the circumstances, but I am pleased at least that you approve of the money that is going into the schools and the hospitals, which ultimately is of course on a vastly greater scale than any money that goes to the royal family.
Question:
You have made it clear again and again this morning that the government will be judged on its record on public services. Given that local government is the biggest deliverer of public services, do you accept that the underfunding in terms of spending per head of urban local authorities outside London is harming the government’s public service delivery agenda?
Prime Minister:
There are big issues about how you allocate the resources between local councils, all I say to you is that it is not easy to resolve that because a lot of the councils down south also feel that they under enormous pressure. And we have of course put in additional sums of money, a lot of money into local government, and I suppose ultimately what I have got to say to you is that our basic view is that we don’t want additional sums of money to go unless there is reform allied to it, which is why we have got the proposals for changing the way that local government works.
And there is going to be a limit frankly on the amount of money that we can put into all the services. The one thing I have learnt as Prime Minister in the last five years is that virtually everyone who sees you has a good cause, and they all cost money, and in the end there is a limit to what we can do. But for example on social services, councils are going to get a 6% real terms increase, year on year on year, for several years. That should relieve one big area of strain.
And I know that councils object to this, but I think that the fact that we have pressured or persuaded councils to put most of their education money now through to the schools has been of enormous benefit for the school system and one of the reasons why, and let us again be proud of this, one of the reasons why the latest international, the most authoritative international report on comparative education systems had Britain in the top eight of those education systems in the world ahead of France or Germany is because there has been substantial additional investment and change going into our school system. And I know there are some parts of local government that consider themselves the poor sisters of this exercise, but I am afraid it is inevitable when we are choosing priorities.
Question:
… you have talked a lot about the increased influence of Britain in Europe and the central place it has now that it has gained in the last five years, but do you genuinely believe that if you decide for economic reasons to stay out of the euro that long term you would be able to keep a central influential role in Europe?
And secondly, you have just said that you feel that the rest of Europe is moving your way and that surprises me a bit because as far as I know the rest of Europe is moving to the right. So I just want to know because by the autumn you might be the only official left of centre government left, how are you going to make the rest of Europe move your way, or why do you feel they are?
Prime Minister:
There are some very cheeky comments being made around here about what it says about the nature of this government. But first of all on the euro, I think it all depends, if we were to stay out for political reasons then I think we would lose influence. I think people understand that the economic tests matter though, but it is a statement of the obvious in relation to eurozone policy that you have less influence if you are out than if you are in, that must be a statement of the obvious, but for Europe as a whole, I think it depends on people believing that we are politically committed to the European Union, albeit committed also to reforming it in the way we want. People don’t expect us to be committed to every aspect of Europe, indeed the reason why I say the argument is moving our way is that reform is on the agenda.
And I actually believe if you like, I think the significance is less in centre right or centre left governments, I think it is that governments who are up for reform in Europe are doing better. You see it is not true to say that every centre left government is losing. The Swedish government is in a strong position, we don’t know yet what is going to happen in Germany, let us wait and see. This government won a very substantial majority just a year ago. If you look at some of the applicant countries, actually they have had centre left governments winning the elections.
So I don’t think it is all of one piece except what I do think is that if governments aren’t alive to the concerns that people have on issues like Europe, and the feeling that people have that too much decision making in Europe is too centralised and not sensitive enough to the real concerns of people in Europe, then those governments are perceived as out of touch, but you can address those concerns whether you are a centre right or a centre left government.
And the fact is, I found what was fascinating about my conversation with President Chirac yesterday, we had a very good, a very warm, very close conversation and we will work together closely on a lot of these issues in the future in a way that I think a few years ago Britain and France working closely together would have been almost unthinkable.
Question:
Do you … on the euro are going to start and you are not telling us, and if you don’t know, what set of circumstances are you waiting for to start them?
Prime Minister:
No, it is as Gordon said a short time ago, the preliminary work is getting done there and there is a time limit which is the first two years of the parliament, but we don’t see any need to be more specific, I don’t think it is sensible to be more specific than that.
Question:
It is clearly not … strengthening of the euro and the relative weakening of sterling would evidently make it slightly more likely that we could join the single currency, wouldn’t it, only a fool would think otherwise.
Prime Minister:
That is what they call in the Whitehall trade a leading question. Well it depends if it is sustainable or not is the right answer and you can’t judge this simply on month to month.
Question:
I just said not … but I said it just makes the probability that little bit more positive for joining the euro?
Prime Minister:
What it does is mean that the differential if you like between what people would consider a level for sterling and where it has been for some time reduces, but I don’t think it says more than that and you certainly can’t judge it on a day to day or month to month basis and that is why the economic tests are important, that is why there is detailed work that has to be done and it is right to do it, and I think that people in the country will pay a lot of attention not just to the fact of the tests but to their knowledge and conviction that those tests have been seriously addressed.
And that is why I don’t and never have thought of the tests as political camouflage, I know that there is a sort of view that they are, and I am not saying, of course political will is important because if the tests are passed you have got to have the political will to do it, but I have always said that the political will is not in doubt, if the tests are passed we will do it, we will put it to people in a referendum, but the tests are real, they do have to be really met.
Question:
What role do you envisage you yourself playing in overseeing and helping to guide the Treasury in its assessment, and if as you say it is a purely economic assessment being carried out purely by Treasury officials, is it entirely the preserve of the Treasury?
Prime Minister:
Well it is as we have explained before, of course these decisions are collective government decisions, but the tests are being carried out by the Treasury and it is important that they are carried out as I say with rigour and scrutinising the tests that we have set out and are met, but in the end the decision is a collective government decision.
Question:
The Treasury will advise you what its conclusions are?
Prime Minister:
Of course the Treasury conduct the tests but the reality is of course that we do this collectively as a government.
Question:
About the euro, do you welcome this trend of a stronger euro against also a weaker pound? And should in your opinion the European Convention wait for a euro referendum before presenting a final text of the constitutional review?
Prime Minister:
No, I think that the European Convention should complete its work in the ordinary way as it wants to do, and the most important thing for us is to have a good input into that European Convention, as we are having.
There is in my view an emerging consensus in Europe that as Europe integrates more it is all the more important for that integration to be on the basis of nations, not on the basis of some federal superstate, and if we want to look at lessons from European elections, I think those parties closest to that position have done best in European elections.
And as for the strength of the euro, I want the euro to be successful.
Let us again be absolutely clear about this, it is in the interests of this country that the euro be successful, in or out of the euro. 60% of our trade is with Europe. For the euro to fail would be a disaster for Britain, even if Britain weren’t a member it would be a disaster for Britain, so we want it to succeed, and that is one of the reasons why the process of economic reform is so important because if we have currencies in Europe that are locked together, it gives you stability but it removes the flexibility of a fluctuating exchange rate, it means that structural reform is all the more important so that labour markets are flexible, so that there is some measure of labour mobility, and so that there is a genuine competitive market that can mean that within the stability of the single currency economies can adapt.
Question:
So you welcome a stronger euro?
Prime Minister:
Yes, of course we have said all the way through that we want the euro to be strong and successful.
Question:
Coming back to the European immigration policy, there is one question regarding Kalingrad. The problem as you said before that by 2004 there will be new members in the European Union with the Baltic Republics expected to be the ones and there will be the problem of the free flow of people from this area and from other areas. What is your understanding of the possible solution of the problem to give for example special visa treatment for this big amount of people who are living in this area, or maybe other solutions may be done on this particular point?
Prime Minister:
I honestly don’t know the answer to that. The one thing that I would say is that enlargement will make the external borders of Europe all the more important, but consideration of special visa regimes, I would not be qualified to talk about at this stage.
Question:
Isn’t it a classic example of spin, presentation and recycling, to say that you hope the European Union Summit in Seville will agree a common asylum policy with all the things you listed, when in fact the European Union agreed just that, did they not, at Tampere and yet nothing has happened about it, it hasn’t been pushed through effectively. So in leading people to believe that this is something new, what you are actually doing in fact is addressing the failure of the Tampere call to be put into practice. And on that subject, could you cope if Alastair Campbell left?
Prime Minister:
Thank you very much for that. The question is could you cope?
Question:
Yes.
Prime Minister:
Well I won’t put that to a show of hands, but you are actually wrong, well you are right in one sense but you are wrong in the bigger picture. You are right in the sense that no, we haven’t taken through Tampere in the way that it should. There was a special conference at Tampere, we did agree certain measures, they haven’t been followed through with the assiduousness that we need, but I believe the momentum is quite different now, I think the issue is far higher up the agenda than before.
But however Tampere did not deal with all the issues to do with common asylum, they did not deal with the issues to do with Europe’s external borders in the way that is now being proposed and I think that the combination of the additional measures that we are proposing, plus the far greater political will to deal with this, does actually mean that Seville is quite different. And I think it is interesting, Tampere was always supposed to be a Justice and Home Affairs Council, but I remember it at the time, there wasn’t much interest in it frankly, it was there on the agenda but I don’t remember it being a big item much on the news and so on. Seville needn’t necessarily have been about asylum and immigration at all, it has become about that precisely because ourselves, the Spanish, other countries have recognised this is a big issue.
Question:
After 11 September there was a profound sense of shock and a sense that the western world was under siege, and after Afghanistan and everything that has happened since, that sense has lessened and you can tell that obviously by the fact that there haven’t been any questions about that. What is the situation now, how do you assess it?
Prime Minister:
I know it is an interesting point because there is still a great deal of risk and the situation in Afghanistan is obviously not sorted out, but there is no doubt at all, al Qu’eda has been dismantled and destroyed in Afghanistan pretty much. Its capability to organise and launch attacks that have been organised post-11 September is probably very much reduced. What we don’t know is what was out there before, organised before 11 September and still waiting to happen, because all the evidence is that the 11 September attack was a long, long time in preparation.
So I don’t think that we should stop being vigilant at all, the threat levels are still there, they are high, we are dealing with this issue the whole time in government and people would make a very big mistake if they thought this issue was off the agenda, it isn’t. And in Afghanistan obviously, the Loya Jirga has been very successful, we have made a lot of progress, today we hand over the Isaf force to the Turks, we have done better in Afghanistan than we could possibly have imagined, Afghanistan is now almost a sort of rebuilding the Afghan state issue and that is a different type of issue, important though it is.
But the al Qu’eda and international terrorism, it is there, it is real. And I say to people again, this issue of weapons of mass destruction won’t go away either, it is a real, real issue, there are states acquiring capability who pose a significant danger and threat.
Question:
So do you agree with bumping off Saddam, as President Bush suggests?
Prime Minister:
Well I only read the speculation about that.
Question:
You got a briefing though.
Prime Minister:
I am afraid I am not qualified to comment on whether it was a proper briefing or not, not on those briefings anyway.
Question:
Forgive me if I return to the issue of trust, because it seems to me that Ministers up until now have blamed it on someone else, the media today you have said it is one of those things and there are more important things. Isn’t it more important than that, aren’t there some people who are fearful that you are a very powerful government because of your parliamentary majority and the system of government we have in Britain, and they fear that at best you are complacent, and at worst arrogant when charged with abusing that power, whether it is to do with funding or The Queen Mother, they fear that you are arrogant with power and isn’t that what they are saying and that you need to take some responsibility for that?
Prime Minister:
It is true that we obviously as a government are in a powerful position, we have won another big election victory, as I say I don’t notice any great argument coming from the opposition. But you see I totally reject the notion of complacency in the sense of the issues that concern people.
I had a two hour meeting this morning on street crime. Now if anyone had been in listening to going through the practical concerns of the police right from the moment that the crime is committed, all the way through the Magistrates system, the youth offending teams through to the schools trying to deal with the problems of truancy and so on, there was no complacency there.
In the meetings that I have on the National Health Service, where we are making big changes, there is a revolution going on in the National Health Service at the moment which I think in time will deliver very big change. Indeed it is interesting that all the latest waiting figures are all now in the right direction. Now people may be sceptical about figures and statistics, no doubt they are, but the fact is that I think that if you were to talk to most people within the Health Service, they see this process of change under way.
You see I think what I am really saying to you, is that in the end the charge of complacency would be if I was sitting there saying to you well I don’t know what you are on about with the transport system, it is fine, there is no problem. I am not saying that. Or I would be saying in the National Health Service, yes but it is all fixed now. I am not saying that.
And I think in the end whatever comes in and comes out, and I don’t really want to get back into what I have already said earlier on this, and I may be completely wrong about it, but I think that in the end what will matter to people is what is happening to their lives and the thing that matters is for them to know and believe that that is what concerns me, that what gets me up in the morning is schools and hospitals and living standards and crime because it is, that is why I came into politics. I didn’t really come into politics to have a discourse about the nature of politics or relations between politicians and the media, I guess this just happens from time to time and I don’t know that any of us should overstate its significance.
Question:
When I talk about complacency I am talking about when questions are raised about funding or about relationships with other bodies like the Palace or something, there is a temptation of Downing Street to say how dare you ask these questions, who do you think we are doing this, and what I am saying is I wonder if you think that there is a perception out there that you are over-mighty and maybe not conscious enough of how powerful you are.
Prime Minister:
Yes, but you know specific issues have to be dealt with in specific ways and you know your right is to ask the questions and our right is to answer them. I think what I am doing is trying to sort of say let’s get a reality check on what matters, and in the end what matters to us and what matters to the people that read or listen to your news media is the things that matter to them in their lives. And I feel myself very, very strongly that in the end that is what comes through, and in any event that is what you have got to do and as I say you have got your job to do, I have got mine, but in the end what matters to me is to get the job done and if I get the job done then that is the best legacy you can have.
Question:
I have jumped my question, Prime Minister, which was about city fat cats getting overpaid again, and in response to what you have just said, you said a moment ago that the Afghan military operation has been successful, well as I understand it so it has with regard to the peacekeeping dimension, but the war making dimension seems to have been hobbled from the start by late and faulty intelligence which prevented our Marines getting anywhere near al Qu’eda fighters.
Secondly, you said a moment ago you didn’t know anything about authorisation of the assassination of Saddam Hussein, but when these chaps brief in Washington they don’t go in for this sort of open government stuff you are so admirably demonstrating today, they brief heavy and they brief in private a long way away from the cameras, so those reports are certain to be true, and if they are true, why don’t you know or are you wasting the air fare going over because you are the first friend?
Prime Minister:
Well, what can I say about that. You have got more experience of Washington briefings than I have.
Question:
No I haven’t, not any more, you have done very well lately.
Prime Minister:
Well all right, maybe you haven’t.
Question:
I told you, you ought to be …
Prime Minister:
I don’t even know whether those reports are correct or not, all I know is what I have read.
Question:
They are certain to be correct Prime Minister.
Prime Minister:
OK. The next time I speak to President Bush I will say never mind what you say, you say this.
Question:
The New York Times says it, that is much more important.
Prime Minister:
Well all right then, even more important than …, but I have got no comment to make on it because I am not abreast of those reports myself. When you say about faulty intelligence in relation to the Marines, I don’t quite know what you mean by that.
Question:
They never found any and they never had conflict.
Prime Minister:
Yes but the purpose, and I do think we did specify this at the beginning, the purpose is to do a sweep throughout Afghanistan where you are uncovering the caves and the hideouts that these people have been in, they may be there or they may not be there, but the important thing is that you are rendering each of those things inoperable for the future, you are gathering whatever intelligence is left there, and actually it was very, very successful and the success was never to be measured in terms of the amount of fighting alone that was done, but the ability as I say to go through, to render the previous camps of the terrorists inoperable and to make sure that indeed that weren’t in the places that we thought that they might be, and I think that our soldiers did a fantastic job in that and personally I would consider it a great success.
And I think if we were to look back on the past, I don’t know, 8 or 9 months in relation to Afghanistan, my goodness we have come a lot further than people could possibly have thought.
Question:
Your personal qualities as leader were crucial in 1997 and in 2001 in electing Labour to government. If your personal ratings fall below that of Labour and you become an electoral liability, will you stand down in favour of Gordon Brown?
Prime Minister:
Oh my goodness. I think I should just carry on doing the job I was elected to do, I think that is the best answer to that really.
Question:
… after all the polls about spin, do you worry that you would be accused of cashing in on everything, and also if England got into the finals, would you have a Bank Holiday?
Prime Minister:
I am sure none of you would ever accuse me of anything like that, so that would be fine. But I think an important thing, as I said in the House of Commons yesterday, is we have got to beat Brazil on Friday, so we can keep those questions until we have done that, I think we have got a very good chance and I am reasonably optimistic about it in fact, but as to what happens with my arrangements or anyone else’s, we can leave that to another day.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
Of course, I think you can take that as read, yes I certainly do. Thank you very much.
Question:
Will you watch the match?
Prime Minister:
Will I watch the match? Now that is a far more serious point, will I watch the match? I hope very much that I am able to watch the match, because I am over actually in Seville, and I understand that it is not in fact on Spanish Television.
Question:
The BBC is providing it.
Prime Minister:
There you are, you can always rely on the BBC.
Question:
Will any Ministerial heads roll as a result of the fridge mountains fiasco, that cost taxpayers £40 million, in other words does Michael Meacher retain your confidence?
Prime Minister:
The problem with this has been that the regulations have had to be implemented against the background of it being extremely difficult to work out the precise measures that you need to take, we actually have put a lot of money and effort into doing it, but we are not alone in having this problem, right round Europe it is a problem as a result of the directive, and Ministers have done their best with a difficult issue. But the fact of the matter is you have got to dispose of that number of fridges, I can’t remember how many thousand it is but it is a lot.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
Right.
Question:
Does the Minister retain your confidence?
Prime Minister:
Yes of course because he has done exactly the right things, but all I am telling you is that no matter who is the Minister who is in charge of it, it is going to be a big task in any event.
Question:
Going back to Seville, do you think that you can actually go back with concrete results to the British population and do you think that the discussions will be hampered, that you have a major problem with France at the moment concerning this issue?
Prime Minister:
No, I don’t think we have a problem with France. France, like ourselves indeed, is anxious to make sure that when we urge cooperation on states who are the sources of a lot of this immigration asylum problem, that we don’t do that in a way that harms our poverty reduction programmes, well we don’t need to do that and we shouldn’t do that, so I am sure a way can be found round that. But I think your first point is a good point, what are the specifics.
We will only be able to agree at Seville certain clear directions, it will then be for the Commission and others to take forward, the member states to take that forward. What I am saying to you though is that I think there is a far greater sense of urgency now than there has been. And remember, politicians are pretty foolish if they don’t look round Europe, look at the election results in the past 18 months and take the lesson from it, quite apart from the fact that it is an issue in any event. So I think you will find that there is a real mood and desire to get things done.
Question:
Prime Minister, you have been criticised for being too close to the United States on missile defence and particularly on a potential war against Iraq. You have criticised President Bush on Kyoto, on steel tariffs, but still polls in this country show that about two-thirds of people think that you haven’t gotten enough out of standing shoulder to shoulder with him. Can you give three examples of places where President Bush has changed his mind or his policy because of your intervention?
Prime Minister:
I don’t think it would be very sensible of me to start listing the areas where I think he has changed his mind, but if you want to know the areas that we have worked closely on, I think you can see that very clearly post-11 September, in particular in relation to Afghanistan, recently we have worked very closely together in India and Kashmir, we are working closely together now on the Middle East. But I don’t look at this relationship with America and say what are we getting out of it, I am doing the things I am doing because I believe them to be right.
I think that it was right for this country to stand shoulder to shoulder with America post-11 September, I think it is right for Britain to be a close ally of America and I think it is right for us as a country to say to our European partners, we are a changed government in respect of Europe, we are pro-Europe, we are in favour of Europe, but it should never be at the expense of our relationship with the United States, not the British relationship, not the European relationship.
Question:
But if you can’t get him to play nice back, on Kyoto for instance or on the International Criminal Court or other subjects that are important to Britain and to you, then it looks one-sided. Of course everyone is against terrorism and people would agree that it is right to support the United States in that respect, but aren’t there specific issues where you wish the United States would do differently and why don’t they?
Prime Minister:
Yes, but I think you would have to say that that is always going to be the case, there are always going to be differences between us and on Kyoto there is a difference, I mean maybe President Bush would say why doesn’t Tony Blair agree with me on Kyoto, you know we disagree, there is a different perspective taken in the US on that.
But what we gain from this relationship is huge and I think what the United States gains from it is big too because how the world responded after 11 September, whether we responded co-operatively or we didn’t, my goodness that matters, it matters to the whole future of the world. If you take another example now, on Africa I think we are working more closely, that is higher up the agenda than people could possibly have imagined a year or two years ago. You will know about Paul O’Neil’s visit, you will know about the work that is being done by the US Treasury in respect of this, and indeed the American Administration, and again we won’t agree on everything, we probably won’t agree on some of the trade issues. But
I think the relationship is basically good and of course there are going to be differences, but this idea that because America doesn’t do everything that Britain or Europe wants that means the relationship is one-sided I think is nonsense, because both sides gain a lot from it.
Russia is another example, there is a key example of where ideas that came in part from here about a new relationship between NATO and Russia have really formed a backdrop in which Russia and America have come together in not a new partnership, but a deeper partnership. Some of those issues like enlargement of NATO, missile defence, are easier to deal with as a result of that new relationship between Russia and NATO.
Now I think that is an example of where the closeness between Britain and America, between Europe and America has mattered. You know people criticise, I read the criticism sometimes about George Bush and unilateralism, all I can say is that I have found him extremely open and easy to deal with throughout the time I have been Prime Minister, and you speak as you find and I find that.
Question:
… why if it is easy.
Prime Minister:
I think I have actually.
Question
You have indicated we should talk about substance today, so rather than question who needs the strait-jackets, us or the Home Secretary at the moment, could I ask you specifically about a substance of jobs. We publish a report today from Leeds Metropolitan University to suggest that 5,000 jobs could go if, or more likely unfortunately when, the Selby coal complex closes.
Are you prepared to do what Labour MPs have asked you to do and step in with a sort of multi-million pound probably post-closure aid that the Germans and the French are fond of doing?
Prime Minister:
At the moment that is under discussion so I can’t give you a definitive answer on that, except to say that obviously I have met a delegation of your local Members of Parliament and discussed it with them.
We introduced the energy help precisely because we knew that the coal industry needed some support as we restructured the pricing of the electricity industry, that is now complete, but the MPs obviously make a powerful case as to why there is still further work to be done in putting the coal industry in a fully competitive position.
Now we are listening to those representations, I really can’t say any more than that at the moment, but there is no doubt at all that the British coal industry at Selby, the productivity is high, the workforce is excellent, but we have got to see frankly how the sums add up.
Question:
The Cantor report into last summer’s racial tension in northern towns in Britain recommended or found the sad state of affairs where different racial groups in Britain were leading parallel lives, that is its conclusion. Now Bradford Education Authority this morning has announced that in order to improve integration it is going to set the quota of 25% for all sixth form colleges so that ethnic minorities are accepted into what are predominantly all white education institutions. You are not traditionally in favour of quotas, I imagine you are not in favour of that idea?
Prime Minister:
I think really that is for the local education authority to decide. But I think that the issue of how we get over some of these community tensions and how we have a dialogue across the community is very, very important and I think it can be done in a number of different ways, education is one, inter-faith dialogue is another, making sure that there are local projects to bring both sides of the community together, but I think these decisions have really got to be taken at a local level.
Question:
A few weeks ago you gave a speech outlining your political philosophy, the big ideas that actually drive you in politics, and the central concept you arrived at was your faith in the concept of equality of opportunity and basically boosting the life chances of those with talent from less advantaged backgrounds.
There is a major piece of research out this week by the LSE which shows that relative to their middle class peers, the children of working class people are actually falling behind in their life chances, and you certainly have a higher education financing system which is through to exacerbate that problem. Shouldn’t a modern centre left government be doing far better on this score and when are you going to start delivering on that?
Prime Minister:
First of all, I don’t know what data they were using but a lot of the data that people use is a few years out of date. And there was a report the other day that was on about equality of opportunity, we looked at the data and they all came up to 1996, others come up to 1998.
Now if you look at what we are doing, for example educational maintenance allowances which are being highly successful in getting youngsters to stay on at school who otherwise would leave, if you are looking at the new proposals we have got on access to higher education in order to draw in more children from lower income backgrounds, if you are looking at for example the Working Families Tax Credit, other measures taken to boost the incomes of lower income families, and of course the huge investment in education, that is the best opportunity you can give, the New Deal for the unemployed, the hundreds of thousands of youngsters that are getting opportunities there, the modern apprenticeship scheme where I think there are now 175,000 youngsters who have gone through that modern apprenticeship scheme, that is the way to do it.
Basically the two parts of the new Labour message are what they have always been, which is aspiration and opportunity open to all and responsibility and respect from all, and that informs all the programmes that we have.
Question:
Do you worry that America’s preoccupation with the war on terror, the money it is spending, the time that it is tying up senior government officials, the jitters that all of that engenders across America, do you worry that that will have an adverse effect on US economic recovery and therefore on the global economy?
Prime Minister:
Well I hope that it doesn’t because obviously these issues are important also to economic confidence. In the end after 11 September there was an immediate economic impact of that, so if we don’t deal with these issues of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, in the medium and long term that is an economic problem too.
Question:
Are you and your wife ardent royalists?
Prime Minister:
I have always made my position clear on the monarchy and I have always said why I believe the monarchy is a better system than an elected President, so that is the answer to that, I am sure that is a position that will satisfy you.
Question:
You mentioned your meeting with President Chirac yesterday, are you now confident that the new French government is more willing than the previous one to deal with issues like the embargo on British beef and the closure of Sangatte Camp?
Prime Minister:
I think the initial discussions on Sangatte have been very positive and I welcome the decision to refer the beef decision back to the Food Standards Agency in France. I recognise the problems and the pressures that French politicians are under, but I think it is very important that we deal with both of those issues. I don’t want to draw comparisons with the previous government, except to say that we are very satisfied with the working relationship we have had with the new French government and I think that augurs well for the future, not just on those issues but across the whole range of issues.
delicious
digg
facebook
