7 November 2005
Tony Blair answered questions from national and international journalists during his monthly press conference in Number 10.
Opening statement
Tony Blair:
Right. Well no-one can complain that it has been a dull few weeks since I stood before you last - still that is the nature of politics. As I said at the weekend, this is a tough and critical moment. Just because we were re-elected 5 months ago on a manifesto of radical reform does not make it any less turbulent to see it through. But as I made clear at the party conference, this third term government is determined to meet head on and prepare Britain for the challenges of the future, continuing to govern from the centre of British politics, so the British people can thrive and prosper.
That is why just a couple of weeks ago Ruth Kelly and I launched our education blueprint that will allow the possibility for every parent to find a decent school for their children. It is why tomorrow we will publish a vital Bill on our public service reforms, namely the Childcare Bill, the first ever Bill dedicated entirely to childcare in early years, and it will enshrine in law the need to help the poorest parents with childcare provision so that they can get back into work.
It is why again today Patricia is announcing the expansion of the drive to a patient-led NHS, by allowing more Hospital Trusts to apply for foundation hospital status. It is also why we are committed to the expansion of the highly successful independent treatment centres that are delivering high quality services for patients. And again it is why later this month Hazel Blears will publish a new community safety plan which will drive forward the next stage of our policy on community policing. And of course coming up shortly are the long-term welfare reform challenges, together with the Turner Commission Report on pensions, and the policy designed to get more people off benefit and back into work. In addition of course we will lay the foundations for a long-term solution to our energy needs by announcing shortly the terms of reference for the energy review.
On top of all this, of course this week will focus naturally on the Terror Bill and the police request to parliament for an extension of the maximum detention period to 90 days with judicial oversight every 7 days. Tonight here at Downing Street we have a reception for the emergency workers who dealt with the horror of July 7, and last week we remembered the dead and injured at St Paul’s Cathedral. We should never forget that this terrorist attack, the worst terrorist attack this country has ever had, happened just a few short months ago. So let me be very clear.
This is not a plan dreamed up by me, or indeed with its origins in the government, it is what the most senior police officers in the country, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the head of anti-terrorist policing, the Association of Chief Police Officers, it is what they have asked us to do as they battle to prevent further terrorist outrages after the July 7 attack. Copies incidentally of the arguments that were published last month by Andy Hayman are on your seats. And to anyone who doubts that they are making a reasoned and considered case, not simply an off-the-cuff case, should study those documents and the examples that they give.
I believe that they have put forward a compelling case, making it crystal clear that the need for a maximum of 90 days to hold suspects prior to charge is necessary. Why? - to track complex trails of evidence through highly coded computer records, to piece together terrorist networks spanning continents, languages, dialects, to break through the cover provided by false identities, and to secure and analyse sites requiring often the most extensive forensic examination. All this work is required by them for the reasons they give, to marshal the strongest evidence to be used in interview, and crucially it has to be achieved with the police preventing attacks first, even though that means gathering more detailed evidence after an arrest than they would otherwise do.
The challenge of this type of terrorism is not one that can be met by the policing methods of the 1990s. I also say I believe it is wrong to frame this debate simply in terms of the civil liberties of terrorist suspects. Of course their liberties are important, but so are the liberties of the people who may be victims of a terrorist attack, what about their most basic civil liberty - the right to life?
So I hope, even now, parliament will not force a compromise on us. As Charles Clarke has just said a few moments ago, we will of course have to table amendments tonight since this is the last time to do so before Wednesday’s debate, but we intend to use the time between now and Wednesday to try to get people to understand the importance of giving the police and our security services the powers they need to prevent terrorism in this country.
Now all of these reforms are in one sense just the natural and necessary response to a changing world. Equally so, the changes we are taking forward in education, health, welfare reform, are about recognising that we were elected precisely in order to take forward these challenges and meet them in a fair way. That was the offer we put to people at the election, it is why we were re-elected. And though it will be difficult, and no doubt there will be many difficulties over the coming months in getting this programme through, my determination to do so is absolutely undiminished.
Question and answer session
Question:
Prime Minister, in one of your interviews at the weekend you said that you believed that the police had actually foiled two serious terrorist attempts since July. In view of some people who may be sceptical because of what happened over WMD, can you give us any more details of those cases? Secondly, if the police are able to foil these attempts, doesn’t that show that actually they don’t need these extra powers? And finally, in view of what the Home Secretary has just said, and what he has written in today’s Evening Standard, hasn’t a Prime Minister who can’t even persuade his own party on what he says is a vital national security issue, hasn’t that Prime Minister effectively run out of road?
Tony Blair:
First of all, in respect of the attacks that the police say that they have foiled since 7 July, I think it would be a really good idea to ask them about that. Don’t take it from me, take it from them. But they were very specific about that at our meeting with them last week. And really do not be under any doubt at all, there are people in our country now, as we speak, who are, we believe, engaged in trying to plot terrorist attacks. Now we may well…they have successfully foiled them…but when the self same people that have been successful post-July 7 tell us they need these powers, and after all it is judicial oversight every 7 days with these suspects, when they are saying they need these powers, I think we have to listen to them.
Look, before the last election we had to compromise in ways I didn’t want to on the anti-terrorism legislation, but let me make it absolutely clear, we do not want to compromise on the 90 days at all, it is not the right thing for the country, be under no doubt about that at all. 90 days with continual 7 day judicial supervision is the right thing for this country’s security, and if we are forced to compromise, it will be a compromise with this nation’s security, don’t let anyone be in any doubt about that. And with the greatest respect, the question is not for me, the question is for those Members of Parliament who are going to walk through the lobbies and vote against what this country needs, on the basis that they know better than the people who have given their professional advice that they need this power to protect our country.
Question:
Prime Minister, just a matter of weeks ago the electorate gave you a good working majority, and you are standing up here and saying I cannot deliver that majority for something I think is vital for national security. Why not simply make this an issue of confidence for you and your government because you believe in this so much?
Tony Blair:
Well that would be the simplest way, wouldn’t it, to divert everyone else on to another track rather than focusing on the issue. As I said to you, we had the same problem even before the last election with a majority of over 160.To describe this as an affront to the basic civil liberties of the nation is in my view just an extraordinary thing to say. Actually it is the civil liberties of people who need to be protected against terrorist attack that should be uppermost in everyone’s mind.
Question:
So why can’t you persuade your own party, and indeed many of your own Ministers, including the Attorney General, who privately say they do not believe in what you are arguing, and now you are trying to turn it on the opposition when you have a perfectly good working majority?
Tony Blair:
No of course I am not suggesting there isn’t an issue with my own backbenchers as well, and that is one of the points I will be making over the next few days, but it is a question for every MP. Really what I am saying to you is this, look people can, as I can see from the last few days, that people want to make this an issue of my authority, this is a far more fundamental question than that, it is a question about the country’s security. What is the right thing to do? Now I know what I think the right thing to do is, in circumstances where the police are saying this, and saying this, if I can just emphasise this to you Nick, they are not saying it in a sort of well this would be quite nice to have type of way.
One of the reasons why I held the meeting last Monday with the senior police officers is I wanted to look them in the eye and say to them: come on, we will have the head of all the police officers in the country, the head of ACPO there, that is Ken Jones, we had Ian Blair, who is the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, we had Andy Hayman, as well as the security services people, and I wanted to look them in the eye and say come on, I said, is this actually necessary, because that is the reason I am putting it forward.
I didn’t come forward with this proposal, they came forward with the proposal, and they said to me, and the word that they used was it is compelling, and they went back through all the reasons that they have given. Because what the police are saying, and I just hope again, you see I know people would love to debate this around me and my majority and all the rest of it so that the public doesn’t quite get the idea of what the issue is, because if the public knew what the issue is, I have got no doubt at all what they would be saying to their local Members of Parliament, so there you go. But just so that you realise the importance of this, when we go back through the reasons the police are giving, why do they say it is compelling and why do I say it is compelling, because what they are really saying is this, normally we would allow a conspiracy such as this to continue for more weeks, possibly even months, as we built up evidence against the conspirators.
The real problem with this terrorism is that because it is terrorism without limit, because these people killed 50 people, but if they could have killed 500 they would have killed 500, the police naturally, and we feel exactly the same, are worried in case they get it wrong, in case suddenly they find that the gestation period for the conspiracy is further advanced than they think. Now that is the reason why have got often to lift these people early, rather than letting them proceed with the conspiracy. So this isn’t a case, and this is why I feel so strongly about this, this isn’t a case where the police are sort of saying well we quite like this power, they are giving a very, very precise reason, attached to the nature of this type of terrorism, as to why they need this power.
Question:
You said the public don’t get it, but I think the public do get it. You have advanced these arguments over and over again, there is some evidence that the public actually support you, would you accept that it would be interpreted as a sign of your weakening authority if you can’t get this kind of thing through, and if you can’t, how much longer do you really want to go on if you feel this kind of thing is so important?
Tony Blair:
Well, how it will be interpreted is a matter for you guys, but I am content to rest on your general objectivity and fairness. Look, how you interpret it is a matter for you, but I didn’t actually say the public don’t get it, what I said is that the public has had this issue talked about for days in terms of so-called my authority, I think when the public actually understand the issue, and I think they are now beginning to understand the issue, I think they will be saying to their Members of Parliament: We just don’t understand what you are doing. What on earth do you mean? How are you in a better position to judge that it should be 28 days, not 90 days? The police are giving us their professional opinion that this is the right time.
As I say, it is not as if the police haven’t advanced reasons. I had someone say to me the other day: "Well the police haven’t given any reasons for this." They keep giving reasons. Andy Hayman set out a detailed list of examples of the cases where this was necessary. The point that they are making about, I think it was 66,000 pages, or whatever it is, of computer file to go through, the fact is it will take a long time to do. So the reasons are all there, and in the end you carry on doing what you think is right, and that is what I will do. Now if we have to, as we did before the election actually, if we have to make a compromise, nobody should be in any doubt, as I said to you a moment or two ago, it is not what I want to do.
Question:
Prime Minister, Charles Clarke has just made this announcement about the amendments, can you just clarify what it is he is going to say, is there going to be a time limit, a number of days attached to one of these amendments, and do we therefore conclude in the end you want 90 days, but in the end you do accept you are going to have to settle for less?
Tony Blair:
Well I don’t accept that until we get into the end game, but look as I was saying to people over the weekend, there is no point in being daft about it, at the moment we don’t have the votes to carry the 90 days. Now that is not for want of trying and I still think there are 48 hours to go with this, as I say I think for the first time, as I was saying to you a moment or two ago, I think the public is beginning to understand really what this issue is here, and I have got no doubt at all that if you guys lay out the arguments on either side where the public is going to be in this debate. But we have to table any amendment for Wednesday for tonight, so we will have to table an amendment, but don’t be under any misapprehension, so that we get this absolutely right, we have got to as a matter of procedure be in a position where we are not then forced back either to 14 days or 28, so we have got to have some other position to put forward, but it is not the position we want. And we hope even between now and Wednesday we can persuade enough people to come over, and there are other things we are perfectly prepared to look at, there has been talk about sunset clauses and all the rest of it, again we are prepared to look at that, but people have got to decide whether they are going to force us to a position that is not one that is right for the country.
Question:
But is there a number of days …
Tony Blair:
Well, I think you wait and see what the amendment is, but I wouldn’t read anything into it until you actually see it. And obviously that depends on some of the discussions we have with people.
Question:
Prime Minister, have the police and security services given you any indication of whether they are prepared to speed up their processes of evidence gathering - more translators, more interpreters, more computer technicians to do this job that they say is now taking so long?
Tony Blair:
Well, they do their very best to speed it up. Can I just lay one other thing to rest, which is this, I am sorry to sound so emphatic about it, but really is this ridiculous idea that somehow there are sort of hundreds or thousands of people that are going to be put through this and it is some form of reintroduction of internment or any of the rest of it. The numbers of people that are likely to be held for up to 90 days are very small, even with the 14 days they are very small, they are less than 20, but the point is that the people that you are talking about may be the people who the difference in holding them and detaining them may be the difference between preventing a terrorist attack and not preventing one. So this notion that somehow this is going to sort of break apart centuries of our judicial system, the actual request the police are making if we implement it would still leave us with a system less tough than that for example of France or Spain.
So there is a sense in which this debate is being conducted with a sort of air of unreality about what the police want and why they want it, and what they are going to do with it. But you know over the weekend I think that there were more arrests made. This is not a problem that has gone away post-July 7, and actually I had to compromise on a lot of this before the last election, and you remember that too, and after the judicial intervention and all the rest of it, I am afraid that is the way it is, but it is not a very sensible thing to do given July 7.
Question:
Mr Prime Minister, in the past month you have been referring to the terror by the Tehran regime in the Middle East and elsewhere. Can you please specify where elsewhere means? And also in the past week the regime has also announced its intentions to start fresh nuclear activities and is seeking partners and investors in its enrichment facilities, can you please comment?
Tony Blair:
Well I don’t know that I have got much to add to what I have already said on Iran. I have made it clear why I think Iran has got to face up to its responsibilities, it has got to abide by the strictures and obligations of the Atomic Energy Authority and we know Iran supports terrorism around the Middle East, and it should stop it, and until it stops it there will be a deep dismay about the Iranian regime right round the world, and they have just got to accept that, and what they do with this terrorism is that they prevent political progress being made, whether it is in the Middle East or elsewhere.
Question:
When you talked before about moving the goalposts and rebalancing the scales of justice, do you think in the interests of candour one should admit that what you are talking about there is an increased possibility of miscarriages of justice, regrettable, undesirable, no doubt compensated, but that this is going to be a consequence of the changes you would like to see in terms of 90 day detention without charge. And just on another note, as you nearly lost the vote last week and there is the prospect of certain restlessness on the backbenches, the prospect of more rebellions in other areas, do you ever regret pre-announcing your resignation?
Tony Blair:
Actually the 90 days, the answer to that is no on miscarriages of justice, because the 90 days allows the police then to compile the case, so you could actually even make the argument that the opposite is true, because what it allows the police to do is to collect the evidence, so I don’t agree with that. However, I think your point is a fair one in respect of some of the other things that we will be talking about in a different sphere altogether. On antisocial behaviour, look every time the police issue a fixed penalty notice, remember the much derided fixed penalty notices, I think at the last count there was over 100,000 of them have been issued, and it is now an essential part of fighting antisocial behaviour. There is no court process that is gone through, it is true, but it is the only way that we are going to be able to bear down properly on antisocial behaviour, and those summary powers for the police in my view are justified, although you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. I also saw something over the weekend where people were complaining about the Serious and Organised Crime Agency and the powers we have given them.
I would like to see them given more powers. I don’t believe we are interfering with people’s basic liberties when we are trying to deal with drug gangs in some of these brutal criminal elements that are either in this country or are trying to get into this country. And I just think it is a very simple issue. This is about, as I keep saying to people, this is about change, it is not about - well of course it is about basic principles as well - but it is primarily about change. If you want to fight antisocial behaviour, you will not do it through the traditional processes.
Now we have got the test. We didn’t have anti-social behaviour legislation a few years ago, we introduced it. I was in Clayton in East Manchester on Thursday and I saw how a local community had literally turned their lives around by the use of those powers, and that is what it is about. And those people who used to go about their lives in fear aren’t in fear any more. Now there are still too many communities where people are in fear, but in the end we could never have done that with the existing law. And that is why it is the same with so many of the reforms, and it brings me on to the point about rebellions and all the rest of it, it is going to be difficult, but the reason it is difficult at the moment is that we are doing things - healthcare reform, pension reform, welfare reform, energy review.
All of these things are tough, and they are tough because taking decisions that shape this country in the right way for the future is difficult, but if you look around the world today, the types of reform that we are introducing in healthcare and in education, they are the types of reforms that are being debated in every government around the world virtually. It is how do you make a modern public service responsive to the user of that service in a world in which today, in every other walk of life, people expect as consumers to have the service that they get responsive to them, that is what it is about. And it is about how you create the right framework of incentives so that the system is constantly adapting and changing as change happens around it, and the problem with all public services always is they tend to become monolithic and bureaucratic, and that is what we are trying to do. And it is no different from, you know you look at virtually any country in the world and they are discussing the same type of thing.
Question:
But did you make it more difficult by pre-announcing that you were standing down?
Tony Blair:
No. You go back and see what the speculation was with Mrs Thatcher in her third year, which is why I think she ended up saying: "I am going on, and on, and on" - and a fat lot of good it did her. So there you go, you pays your money and you take your choice on that one I think.
Question:
Prime Minister, you have made a very compelling case, to use your own word. You say that national security, the safety of the citizens of this country is at risk, if you don’t get 90 days the security will be compromised. I still can’t understand, if you put forward an amendment tonight, I don’t know whether you are going to put a series of amendments, whether it is 30 days, 40 days or 50 days, once you put forward those amendments they will inevitably be seen as a climbdown by you. I can’t understand, you are the Prime Minister, why you can’t make this an issue of confidence, why you can’t put down your motion for 90 days, if you lose the amendment there will be a dissolution and an election, that would at least make your own MPs face up to it. Why can’t you do that?
Tony Blair:
Look, I am all in favour of giving you guys an interesting life, but I think that is putting it a bit far. Look, that doesn’t alter the issue.
Question:
But it is a matter of national security and you should put your authority on the line for national security.
Tony Blair:
Well my authority is always on the line, but what you actually would do if you made it into a sort of confidence motion is you would give everyone an opportunity, because a confidence motion is about the whole government. So that I am afraid is not the answer, the answer is, and it depends, if I can respectfully say so, as much on you guys as anyone else, in giving the public a chance to know what is going on. Because I can’t believe the readers of the Daily Telegraph do not believe that if the police and security services are saying this is absolutely vital for our country’s security, that they wouldn’t be backing it. I think they would be backing it. So you can allow that debate to be held in your newspaper in the next couple of days and we will see where we are.
Question:
Prime Minister, in a few weeks the Northern Ireland Secretary is going to be bringing forward legislation to deal with fugitives in Northern Ireland, the so-called on the runs. A lot of the victims of those fugitives will find a fine irony in your tough stand now on terrorism, and what they believe is going to happen when this legislation is published. How do you persuade those victims and the wider Unionist community in Northern Ireland that you are not going to make this a general amnesty for people just for political expediency?
Tony Blair:
Because we are plainly not. You see Brian, one thing that is important for people to understand about this, and this has been part of the discussion of the basic deal on the table for several years now, so when people come forward and say: Oh, this is something new the government is just doing, the on the runs issue has been kicking around for years and it has been part of the discussion for years, and the reason is very, very simple, and it may be just in advance of this important decision that I explain it. Under the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, people who were convicted and in prison for terrorist offences pre-1998 got released. The question of the on the runs arises for people who committed, or may have committed, or are suspected of committing offences pre-1998 - pre-1998 - how can you possibly say they should be put in prison if the people already convicted have been let out. That is why there is symmetry if you like about dealing with convicted prisoners and on the runs. Now convicted prisoners, people didn’t like either, but it was a necessary part of a new start in Northern Ireland.
Question:
The Northern Ireland Secretary says there will be a judicial process, what will the nature of that judicial process be?
Tony Blair:
Well, you will have to wait and see when he does it, but basically first of all it is not a general amnesty, and most specifically it is not in respect of people, anyone who has committed an offence after 1998 has the full force of the law applied to them, and that is it, they are not part of this thing at all, but neither is a general amnesty in the sense there will be a judicial process. But do you see what I mean, there would be something irrational in saying that somebody who was convicted and in prison for a pre-1998 offence is let out, but somebody who is abroad, and may not yet have even been convicted of an offence pre-1998, you know has to be put in prison. You couldn’t justify it and that is why you have got the stalemate at the moment.
Question:
You indicated in your answer to George Jones, he just said the police and the security services are saying this is absolutely necessary for the security of the country, Charles Clarke last week when asked about the security services, said that the security services are not backing 90 days as such. Which of you is right and what is the role the security services have played in this debate?
Tony Blair:
No, the security services are there for all the discussions that we have had about this, but it is the police that take the lead on this, that is the point, that is why Charles said as such. But don’t be under any doubt at all, this is the view of those charged with protecting our country’s security.
Question:
Could I ask about the remarks, widely reported today, from Chris Meyer that there was a point where you could have stopped the war in Iraq. Do you think that is right? And following on from the resignation last week of David Blunkett, Alistair Graham has asked you to look at the system for operating the code of conduct of Ministers, are you doing that and are you prepared to change it?
Tony Blair:
Well on the first, I am afraid I have nothing to say at all, except to say, as I did on the previous occasion of someone’s book, that I am not getting into book promotion myself. Secondly, in relation to what Alistair Graham said, well he said this a couple of years ago and I have said all the way through, and I will say it again now, I think I said it over the weekend, maybe in the interview I did, the only person who will decide who is in the government in the end is the Prime Minister and you can’t sub-contract that decision, and that is why I didn’t agree with the recommendation there and still don’t.
Question:
In the interview that appeared at the weekend, you were asked whether you regret bringing David Blunkett back in to the Cabinet, and you replied: "I don’t know." Can you tell us why you said that?
Tony Blair:
Look, for pretty obvious reasons, given what has happened. But I also said how much I admired him and respected him, and I still do, and I am very sorry about what has happened.
Question:
Putting aside your answer to Colin Brown about Christopher Meyer, can I ask you, just not specifically in relation to the book, but the charge is, and it has been put by others, that you didn’t use your influence on the timing of the war and over post-war planning, and in particular that if you had asked for a delay in the war for about six months, this would have given you more time to find out whether there were weapons of mass destruction. It is a serious charge put by a number of people, not just by Sir Christopher Meyer.
Tony Blair:
If you go back and look at what happened in March 2003 I think you will see that I made the most strenuous efforts to get a second UN resolution, and to end up with a second resolution that would have given us more time. The fact is we couldn’t get one, and we couldn’t get one for a very simple reason, the French made it clear they would veto any such resolution. That is the reason why in the end you had to make a choice, and there was no other way.
Question:
He specifically said that the French subsequently said that you and the Americans have exaggerated the degree to which they were saying no.
Tony Blair:
Go back and have a look at what was said at the time - whatever are the circumstances. I don’t know what those words imply to you, but they rather imply to me whatever are the circumstances.
Question:
Prime Minister, you say with some scorn that the public will say to MPs who vote against you on the 90 day question, who are you to judge. Well, isn’t that something we call democracy, aren’t these people elected to parliament to make a choice in those kinds of circumstances? And how far are you going to go in giving the police and security authorities what they want in this country and not balancing that against civil liberties, isn’t it your job to find some kind of balance there? You sounded reluctant yourself when first presented with the idea of 90 days at one of these press conferences back in July. Where does it stop? If the police said they needed 180 days, would you give them 180 days? If they say they want the return of capital punishment, or the stocks, the ducking stool, where does it stop?
Tony Blair:
Are you trying to make policy for me? No. Look, first of all the police have put forward this proposal for 90 days on the basis of a case that they have set out. They are not just throwing this idea out, they have set out the reasons why they need more time with this particular type of terrorism. Of course I am not in the position of doing whatever the police ask us to do, but the reason I say that we should support it is that I find their case compelling.
Again, we have put in the very balancing checks that are necessary for civil liberties, that is why we are saying every 7 days, ie every week, it has got to be brought back in front of a High Court Judge. So this is not 90 days and then no-one cares about the person, it is 90 days with every week the judge has an opportunity to say: well I am afraid you are going to have to let that person go. That is the check that it is proper for us to put in.
The reason I say that you know MPs should prefer the police’s judgment on the time is that most of the MPs are saying yes we agree there should be an extension of time, because they are saying it should be 28 days, but my point is if you agree the extension of time that is necessary, is it really sensible to substitute your view for the professional judgment of the police as to what is necessary? Now I agree, if they were asking for something utterly outlandish and outrageous with no proper evidence to back it up, and there was no proper judicial oversight, that would be a different matter, but they are not asking for that, they are asking for 90 days on a case that I still have yet to hear the argument against frankly, with the judicial oversight every 7 days to protect the person, and that is why it is important. And it really is not good enough for people, I think I heard Ken Clarke saying the other day "Oh, the police always ask for this type of thing". It is just not good enough, it really isn’t, it is not responsible.
Question:
Prime Minister, by your own admission you are turning the traditional civil liberties of this country, or at least the perceived notion of civil liberties here, on their head for the sake of fewer than 20 suspects. At the same time there is widespread apprehension within Northern Ireland, still within the UK, that former terrorists, the people who posed the greater threat prior to July 7, will actually be responsible for policing, or some kind of discounted policing within communities. People are worried certainly in this country, and in another part, that you are turning civil liberties on their head on one side while at the same time you are actually going to diminish policing and allow some kind of restorative justice that gives the upper hand to former terrorists, including those people Brian mentioned earlier.
Tony Blair:
Well there are two separate things there. One is the whole on the runs point and I have explained the principle of that; the second is the point you very correctly make about the so-called restorative justice. That must most certainly not be used in order to allow people who have been complicit in acts of terrorism, or who are engaged in unlawful activities, to start running local policing. And I know that anxiety is there in Northern Ireland and we will take steps over the next few months to make sure that that anxiety is allayed. But in general terms I just think the two situations are completely different, and I don’t think many people in Northern Ireland would actually see them as the same. But the point on restorative justice, I entirely accept that, I know that is a worry, and we will take steps to make sure that that worry is laid to rest.
Question:
… change this country’s civil liberties for the sake of what you said was fewer than 20 serious suspects.
Tony Blair:
Well I would put it to you the other way round. I think the fact that there are a very small number of suspects means that this is not some huge incursion in the civil liberties of the majority of people in the country, but if those 20 people are the 20 people that may be engaged in terrorist acts, you only need, as we have seen, a number far fewer than 20 in order to kill large numbers of people. So I would almost turn that argument round the other way and say that is what shows this is actually a targeted measure, not one that is we are just introducing, that is why I think the analogies with things like internment are just fatuous frankly.
Question:
Thank you Prime Minister very much for allowing me to raise a question. The Chinese President, Hu Jintao is coming on a state visit tomorrow. I am just curious about what are you looking forward to hearing from the Chinese President, and what are you going to tell the Chinese Head of State?
Tony Blair:
Well we will discuss I think obviously the economic relations between our two countries, which are growing. We will discuss, of course, the current security preoccupations in the world and how we cooperate better on the Security Council. We will discuss issues to do with climate change where the Chinese have taken part very constructively in the G8 plus 5 dialogue last week. And it will give me an opportunity also to hear from the President as to how economic and political development is progressing in China.
Question:
Have Swan Hunters effectively ruled themselves out of serious consideration for future government work, especially on the two aircraft carriers, after last week’s revelation that the cost of the current contract, which was originally put at £148 million, has now risen to more than £300 million and is still rising?
Tony Blair:
No, they haven’t ruled themselves out of future contracts, but obviously it is important that we make sure that we impose financial discipline, and that is the reason why it has been an issue.
Question:
So they deserve to still be in the running?
Tony Blair:
Well, I think they should always be able to bid, as every other country should be able to bid.
Question:
Christopher Meyer says that he was taken to one side by Jonathan Powell and was told that the foreign policy objective should be to get up the back passage, or something like that, of the United States. Did Powell actually say that?
Tony Blair:
I haven’t the faintest idea.
Question:
Was that our foreign policy objective?
Tony Blair:
No.
Question:
Prime Minister, in your opening remarks, and afterwards, you have given a list of the sort of reforms you say you were elected to pursue in your third term, and you mentioned pensions. When you retire will you look back with pride on the day that you capitulated to the unions and lumbered the private sector with a bill for allowing them to retire on index linked pensions at 60, while the rest of us work until we are 70?
Tony Blair:
Well, in financial terms the deal that was secured was the same. But in respect of pensions more generally we will have the Turner Commission report, I think at the end of November, and that will be a chance to look at the overall pension position.
Question:
Mr Prime Minister, in Latin America people are afraid of the police, mostly because of corruption and bad management, so how would you convince a Latin American audience of your announcement today, how would you sell the policy not to be nervous of police, remembering the Jean Charles de Menezes issue to kill wrongly a … policy here?
Tony Blair:
Well, I would simply say that if you look at the proposals we are making, in particular the 7-day judicial supervision - I don’t think again the public is actually quite aware of the fact that we are saying that every 7 days they have got to come back in front of a court. And so it is perfectly possible for the court to say "Well, we don’t think you are right about this". This isn’t even 90 days without any oversight or scrutiny; it is every week the police have got to rejustify why they are holding the people. That is why I find it really odd for people to say this is such a terrible thing because it seems to me that if you balance it up properly it is perfectly fair.
Question:
Prime Minister, can we just examine one of your thought processes with regards to Iran. The rest of the international community has been pussyfooting around Iran for many, many years. The Foreign Office policy of sort of constructive and critical engagement seems not to have worked. The only policy Iran seems to understand is when the west or the international community actually stands up. With Iran trying to destabilise British troops in Basra, with it wrecking any chances for the Middle East peace process, and with its ally - Syria - now causing problems as well, even over the inquiry into Rafiq Hariri, what can you, as a leading member of the international community, do to make Iran recognise, and recognising also that sanctions do not seem to work either, that they have an obligation and should really clean up their acts, both Iran and Syria?
Tony Blair:
The only thing that would make Iran and Syria change most is a stable and democratic Iraq. That is why this issue now, whatever the original conflict, is of such fundamental importance to the whole future of that region. There is a reason why Iran and Syria do their best to destabilise the situation in Iraq, because they know that if Iraq is allowed to develop as a strong Muslim state, but with a secular democratic government, then it is the best argument you can possibly have for people in Iran and in Syria to say "Why don’t we have some of that democracy, why don’t we have proper civil and human rights too".
So I have got nothing really to add to what I have already said about Iran and we are going to have to find ways with our allies and through the Security Council of making sure that Iran knows the strength of international feeling. The only thing I would say is the more unified the international community is on this issue, the better chance we have got of the Iranians understanding that this is not aimed at Iran or the Iranian people, or even the regime except to the extent the regime is doing things which are completely unacceptable in the international community, like supporting terrorism, like meddling in Iraq, like trying to have a nuclear weapons programme when you are not supposed to have one. So it is perfectly simple as to what they need to do.
Question:
What sort of assessment of the effect on community relations in places like Bethnal Green if individuals are lifted for 3 months without trial, and then perhaps let go without explanation necessarily, having perhaps suffered during that time. And on a separate question, can you assure us that nobody who wears a "Free Tibet" T-shirt in the Mall this week will be hustled away by police, or find themselves corralled where they can’t get a view of the visiting President?
Tony Blair:
Well, people are perfectly entitled to wear "Free Tibet" T-shirts or anything else; we live in a democratic country. And the one thing I haven’t noticed, going around the place, is a shortage of demonstrations, in fact it will be a relief that they are aimed at somebody else.
Question:
Well, it did happen the last time.
Tony Blair:
Well, I am not sure it did actually, part of the issue - well, no we won’t get back into that. But however, having said that, of course people are perfectly free to say whatever they want to say. On community relations, you see it is interesting if you talk to Shahid Malik, the Muslim MP, or John Battle who has been my person in charge of community relations in the past 2 or 3 years, and I think they are talking about this later today, but their view is, and I think this is quite important, that there is a sort of patronising view in some quarters that somehow the Muslim community will really, really resent tough action on terrorism.
The Muslim community know perfectly well how important it is to tackle terrorism, because terrorist acts cause difficulty for them. Think how angry they feel at these people using or abusing their religion in order to say it is in the name of that religion that they are killing innocent people when actually the Koran is very, very specific that to do such a thing is a sin. So I don’t doubt you will be able to get people who speak out and say this is going to undermine community relations, but my view has always been very, very clear about this, that we should not assume that Muslims are in any different position than anyone else on these types of issues. They hate terrorism, a lot of them are victims of terrorism, and what they want to see is the terrorists taken on, just the same as everyone else does.
Question:
Prime Minister, you have explained how you have got a very full agenda, a radical agenda. Newsnight has done a poll over the weekend which shows that 25 per cent of the public think that you should change your mind and stay on as Prime Minister beyond the next election, and among young people it is as many as a third of the public. How about it?
Tony Blair:
It’s a great idea, isn’t it? No.
Question:
Inaudible.
Tony Blair:
Thank you very much Jerry. No, I have made up my mind on that. You know look, one of you was saying to me earlier, do you bring all this speculation on yourself by saying that you are not going to fight a fourth election, but I do remember, my memory may be playing me tricks, but I don’t think so, this is a constant matter of speculation when a Prime Minister has been there a certain amount of time, and what I want to do, and I will be saying this to the Labour Party later tonight, is I see my reform programme as part of building the platform for a potential fourth term victory. Because it is only when you do difficult things as a government and see them through that the public thinks you have got it in you to govern. Now let me just give you two examples.
Today we have got an announcement, no one has asked me here about it, for perfectly natural reasons, and indeed it is not much in the news, extending foundation hospitals. Do you remember 2 years ago, I can give you the quotes from some of my backbench MPs; this was the end of the Health Service. Today there is nobody telling me to get rid of foundation hospitals, in fact they want to extend them, and actually you have got foundation hospitals agitating because they think they are not being given enough chance to compete with the private sector. So all I am saying to people is this is not me sort of launching a whole lot of stuff just because I have suddenly had this idea in Downing Street, these are policies agreed by the Cabinet, they will be taken through by the Cabinet Ministers, and they are necessary to change the country in the right way. Now that is what I want to do and I want to build the platform for that fourth term election victory. But anyway if you let me know the people that you polled, I will give them a personal letter of thanks and congratulation.
Question:
Are you concerned about the riots taking place in France these days? Do you think that the British situation is different, or are you scared that the riots and arrests can spread elsewhere in Europe, even here?
Tony Blair:
Well, I think everybody is concerned at what is happening, and I send every support to the French government and to the French people in dealing with the situation. You know you should never be complacent about these things, although I think our situation is in some ways different, but I think to anyone who has seen the pictures, and someone was telling me earlier today, and I don’t know how factually accurate this is, but there has been something like 28,000 cars burnt out in France in the last few months, which I find absolutely extraordinary. But I suspect it is part too of the French authorities gripping a law and order situation, which has to be done. And we faced the situation in this country a few years back, I think…where…when the police started to take tough measures there were issues and difficulties and you have just got to work at this community relations thing the whole time really.
Question:
Going back to the Middle East if I may, Prime Minister would you welcome measures Syria has taken so far in response to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1636, and would Britain actually … calls by some council members to let Syria prove its innocence of the assassination of Mr Hariri?
Tony Blair:
Well, I think we have just got to make sure that we get the right resolutions put through and that Syria then abides by it, that is the important thing. Because on any basis the report that was done into Mr Hariri’s assassination is a very, very serious report for Syria and we have got to make sure that they are following through in the things that they are supposed to do.
Question:
You have already answered the French question so I will ask a question about Europe. How confident are you at this stage to reach an agreement on the budget by the end of the year? I am asking it because it seems that the situation is trickier today than it was at the start of the Presidency. We don’t have really a stable government in Germany so it may be difficult to have anybody to talk to, and in Poland potentially they have just elected a government and President, which will probably ask for more agricultural subsidies, not less. So how would you assess the situation?
Tony Blair:
Well it is going to be difficult but we will give it our best shot and that is all we can do, and we will try to do it. I actually spoke to Angela Merkel over the weekend about this and it is important we do our best to try and reach an agreement, because that is important for Europe and in particular it is important for the new members in Europe. The new members in Europe are very, very anxious indeed that they get a settlement, because if we don’t do that then we are going to cause them a significant problem.
Question:
I am going to ask you about the rising tension in the Great Lakes region. I am sure you are aware of the tension in the area where Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan and Congo have massed troops on the common border. It seems the common problem is the democratic transition in Uganda and which in my view Britain seems to have compromised its long-term interest in the Great Lakes region. Britain has imposed a ban, restriction on visa restrictions on Kenyan Ministers travelling to Britain, allegedly because they have been involved in corruption, unproven corruption, while at the same time Ugandan officials are moving up and down to Britain, when the Global Aids Fund has recently suspended its programmes to Uganda, unproven corruption.
Tony Blair:
Can I just stop you there? To be absolutely frank, rather than me just sort of talk on it, I think I am best to send you something on it, because there are one or two issues there that I am not completely au fait with. So if you will allow us, we will get you a written statement later today.
Question:
Prime Minister, going back to the EU budget, do you have a specific offer to put on the table, a specific offer in mind to break the log-jam over the budget, and would you prefer no budget deal to the prospect of a political backlash back here if you were to give up the rebate?
Tony Blair:
Well, there has never been any question of giving up the rebate, but the question is getting a financial deal that is fair for everybody, and we will do our best to do it. But yes, of course, there are all sorts of things we are working on, but if you don’t mind it is probably best that we work on them privately at least in the first instance and discuss it with other countries. And today there will be the discussion in the General Affairs Council so that will give us an opportunity to discuss this at length.
Question:
What do you say to those who say that after a bruising week, appearing on a football chat show smacked a bit of desperation?
Tony Blair:
How can you say that after my performance? I have been making my office extremely irritated all morning by boasting ridiculously about my exploits on it. No, let’s put it like this, it was certainly the best moment of the week, let’s hope it is not the best moment of the next week as well.
delicious
digg
facebook
