PM's press conference

23 January 2006

Read the full transcript of January's monthly press conference. Mr Blair focused on the welfare Green Paper to be published this week.

• PM's monthly press conference

Read the transcript in full

Prime Minister:

Good Morning everyone. Right, I will say a word or two about tomorrow's Welfare Reform Green Paper, and then say a word about schools, and then obviously the normal procedure of questions and so on.

First of all on the Green Paper on Welfare Reform, since 1997 there have been huge changes in the benefit system. There are somewhere in the region of 2.3 million more people in work than in 1997. Youth unemployment is down over 90% and the UK now has the highest employment rate in the G8. However, there are still far too many barriers that prevent people who could work from doing so. Therefore what we want to do is to set forward the proposals in the Welfare Reform Green Paper that allow us to make another big step change in moving people off benefit and into work. And it is no coincidence that the most severe pockets of deprivation can be found in the hundred constituencies with the highest number of people on incapacity benefit.

Incapacity benefit, as you know, trebled in the late '70s to the mid-'90s. Since then, although the numbers of people coming on to incapacity benefit has actually fallen by around about 30%, nonetheless the actual stock of claimants is still very, very high indeed, round about three million. The vast majority of claimants expect to get back into work when they first come on to incapacity benefit, but actually the evidence shows that they don't do so.

So we have to address the reasons for that, and at the heart of tomorrow's Green Paper is the desire to give people the help they need and empower them to liberate their own talents and get back to work. We know this approach works. The New Deal for the disabled and Pathways to Work, which have both been piloted over the last few years, have shown real success in moving people back into the labour market. And the problems with the current system are self-evident. The gateway to incapacity benefit is poorly managed. Some people start receiving the benefit even before they have passed the appropriate tests; secondly, until Pathways to Work at least, virtually nothing was done to help people by way of support. There are perverse incentives, you receive more the longer that you claim, and those who plan their return to work through training and volunteering often run the risk of losing their benefit as a result of doing so, so it is a disincentive for them to get off benefit and into work. And ultimately this is about fairness, it is about fairness in terms of helping people off benefit into work and making sure that only those who should be on incapacity benefit are actually on the benefit.

Now that is going to be announced, as you know, tomorrow by myself and John Hutton, but whilst we are on the subject of reform it might be helpful if I also said a few words about the Schools White Paper.

I think the first thing to emphasise is that this reform is based on what works, and it has at its core a very, very simple purpose - it is to raise standards in our schools, it is to make sure that the schools that are failing and not offering children the best education are radically improved, that average schools become good schools, and that good schools are able to expand and develop in the way that they want. It is about standards of education in this country, and for all the progress that we have made over these past few years, we know perfectly well that it cannot be acceptable that still 40% of those that sit their GCSEs do not get five good GCSEs. So we know there is a long way to go. We also know that schools that have a distinctive ethos, such as voluntary aided schools, do better, that is why we want more schools to be free to set up trusts if they want to develop that type of ethos and purpose.

I also want to say just one or two words about the City Academy programme because it has been in the news recently. It is just important to emphasise that these City Academies are replacing some of the most difficult and failed schools in the entire country. The average proportion now getting five good GCSEs in City Academies is 35% compared to 21% in their predecessor schools, that is literally just within a couple of years. The improvement in City Academies is three times the national average at GCSE, and the real point about it is that parents are voting with their feet. What is happening, as the recent report showed, is that academies, having taken over schools that were often under-subscribed, are now massively over-subscribed. There is a reason why parents want to go there, because they believe the education of their children is going to be better.

And in that regard I might just say a word about the Bexley Business Academy that has been in the news recently. It is absolutely true that this year the GCSE results dipped a little from last year, last year I think they were 34%, this year it is 29%. But a few years ago, when Bexley started, 6% of kids got five good GCSEs. And as the school has pointed out, if you look at the children who have spent all their schooling in the academy and are now sitting their Key Stage 3, the results have gone up from 30% getting the right result a couple of years ago, to 55% today.

Now this is in the schools that are in the most difficult areas with the most difficult problems. For example, if you look at the CTCs - the City Technology Colleges - whether it is the Harris CTC in Croydon, in 1993 27% got five good GCSEs, it is now over 90%. You could go through all of those and point to the same types of results. Where you look at federations, which we are also introducing, and how they have worked, if you take for example Thomas Telford School which took over the poorest performing school in Telford, the Madeley Court School, Madeley Court School used to have, for about 150 places, 50 youngsters wanting to go. Just in a short period of time, as a result of this federation and the engagement of Thomas Telford, then the percentage getting five good GCSEs has risen from just over 20% to over 50%, they hope to hit 75% next summer and the intake is now full with over-subscribed numbers wanting to go to that school.

Now I also just over the weekend asked for an analysis in the most deprived areas, and these are I think 700 schools where over 20% of the kids are on free school meals, just an analysis of the difference between those schools that were specialist schools, in other words they have got some outside sponsorship, they have got a specialism, they have got greater freedom and they are a traditional comprehensive. In those areas, the most deprived, in other words the same intake, the specialist schools out-performed the traditional comprehensives by in the region of 10% - 46% compared to 36%.

So remember 60% of schools are now specialist in this country, and remember too when specialist schools were first introduced a few years ago we were told that that was going to be a return to selection and the end of the comprehensive system as we knew it.

So my point is very simple. We are introducing these school reforms, based on the evidence of what works. We want the same freedoms that schools are using now to good effect, the same ability to have external partners to help you raise standards in schools which are now being used to good purpose, we want that to be extended as of right to all schools.

We have made great progress in education over these past eight years and no-one should ever pretend otherwise. The results at every single level are up. But it cannot be acceptable that we still have a situation where as I say just over 40% of those sitting their GCSEs don't get five good ones. It is true that we have increased it significantly in the past eight years, it used to be just over 40%, now it is heading towards 60%, but it is not good enough and it is because it is not good enough that we need these reforms to work.

So it is obviously going to be a very interesting debate in the weeks ahead. I am sorry to take such a long time about some of that evidence, but it saves me doing it in response to questions, not that I can't guarantee that I won't repeat it all over again.

Question and answer session

Question:

Can I ask you about education, a sort of hard policy question and a slightly more personal question as part of it? No, not personal in that way, not after this weekend. On policy first of all, if the answer, as government says in its White Paper, is to stop councils owning and running their own community schools, what is the question that produces that answer? And the personal question was this. You got enormous flack for sending your own children across London and not to the local schools, isn't part of your passion for this subject because you know you would face exactly the same choice, even though you have been in office for eight years?

Prime Minister:

Right, in respect of the first point, the reason why we proposed this change in the Schools White Paper is that you can't have a situation where the local authority is both the decision maker as to who sets up the new school, and is an applicant to set up the new school itself, and that is the reason why it is important that we move to a situation where the local authority become effectively commissioners of schooling, rather than pretending, and frankly this is a pretence, because local authorities haven't run schools for a very long time, that they are actually going to run the school themselves. And that is the reason for it, I think most people, I hope at least, understand that.

And on your second point, my view on this is very clear. All parents are going to do their level best for their kids. I wanted to do the best for my children, everyone does, it is a natural instinct of any parent. And we can't have a situation where people say, if you have got a good school and lots of people want to go there, well maybe you shouldn't have that good school because it disadvantages other schools who suffer in comparison. We are never going to win an education debate in the country on that basis. What we have got to say is look, if you have got a good school and it wants to expand, or you have got a good school that is average and wants to become good by doing the things that other good schools are doing, let them do it, let the system be open to that type of change and dynamism. No-one is forced to do it, but if the parents and teachers at a school believe that is best for their school it can't be the job of central or local government to stop them, it has got to be the job, in the interests of standards, to help them do it. And look, I think there are many more good schools in London than there were a few years ago incidentally. When we came to office I think there were only 30 schools in the whole of the London area that were getting over 70% good GCSEs, today the figure is 100. Now I am afraid I am not completely up to the mark with the local schools in Islington any more, and as I have often pointed out to people, I didn't anticipate in the mid-1990s I was going to be hanging about in Islington, I rather thought I was going to change address. But the point you are making however is a perfectly fair one and I accept it, and I have always said to my own party that the first thing to understand about education is that parents want to do the best for their kids, and nothing is going to stand in the way of them doing that. And that is why I say to people, look I have this conversation with people who send their kids to private school, and if you actually believe that is the best thing for your children, people are going to do that. Our task has got to be to raise the standards in the state schools so that people, particularly as they do in some areas of London, don't feel that necessity, and that should be our task and challenge.

Question:

I am sorry, are you saying because there is a lot of code in this debate about enablers and providers and which the public doesn't understand, are you saying that too often you think councils have held parents back, because your White Paper introduction says we must put parents in the driving seat for change, the local authority must stop, da, da, da. What are you saying to people is the problem with councils?

Prime Minister:

Look, it is not just a problem with councils, it is a problem with government per se. It all depends what you think the role of government is. I think the role of government, whether it is central government or local government, is to help people do what they know is best for their children. So if a school wants, as successful schools often have, to have an external partner, if they want to develop greater freedom in the way that they manage their school, our job should be to help them, and help them in the interests of raising standards for the children, not just sit there, central or local government, and say no we know what is best for you, you are not doing it. And that is what I would like to see, and this is why this is a very important political debate, Nick, it is a very, very important political debate because it is about where you also see the role of government. Is the role of government to help you put power in your hands to do what you want, or is the role of government to tell you what you want?

Question:

Also on education, just a technical one first of all. You said more schools free to set up trusts. I thought your idea was that all schools would be trusts or part of trusts.

Prime Minister:

Yes, all schools.

Question:

So that wasn't a U-turn or a climb-down?

Prime Minister:

No, no, it certainly was not. No, but the point is sometimes, you see these proposals mis-described the whole time as if schools are going to be forced to set up a trust. It is a permission, but all schools will have this ability, yes.

Question:

And just on this central question of selection, why is selection on ability wrong given that that is how people are then chosen for university, given that that is the system that you and all the other party leaders and the Education Secretary came up through, and also given the fact that social mobility as far as Oxbridge is concerned, one of the big concerns of the Chancellor, was greatest when there was selection in state secondary schools. Why is it wrong?

Prime Minister:

I will tell you why I think it is now today not a sensible way forward, but I agree it is a very good question. We in politics just tend to assume the answers to these questions, but I think the answer is this, that in today's world we can't afford to have anything other than the vast majority of our children getting educated to a very high standard. And I think the risk is that if you divide kids up into successes and failures at the age of 11, and however you dress it up that is what it becomes, you tend, you can understand the reasons for it in the days when large numbers of people would have gone to do factory jobs of a very hum-drum nature and maybe they only needed basic training, but not today, you need a highly educated workforce. And if you want to reach, as the CBI was saying recently, and I agree with them, we should be setting a basic aim as a country to get 80% of the kids getting five good GCSEs, you are not going to do that on a selective system in my view, and that is why I think it is an old-fashioned concept and that is why I am actually pleased that the Tories have moved on that, I think it is sensible.

Question:

When you were talking about the detention of terrorist suspects for 90 days you didn't compromise, and if my memory serves me rightly afterwards you said it is better sometimes to do the right thing and lose than to do the wrong thing. Are you going to take a similar approach to your education proposals?

Prime Minister:

I have often said that it is not the same issue, but in a sense when I am saying it is because it is fundamental to the government this, because it is about everything to do with the politics of the government, what we think, how we feel, what is our basic position, but I am not intending to lose it. But it is a bit of a high-wire act this at the moment, I accept that because I have got significant numbers of my own side who are against it. But my job is to go out and say to people this is critical about standards, about educating our children. And the great myth about the British education system is that we have no evidence of what works. We do. You only have to look at what is happening to those schools that have got a strong individual independent sense of ethos and purpose, that are using external partners sensibly, that are developing themselves in a distinctive, and different, and better way, they are raising the standards for their kids, they are giving kids a better education. And these City Academies, I make you this prediction, that in a few years time people will turn round and see the City Academy programme as just essential to giving the kids in the most deprived areas a better chance of education, and in my view we should be expanding that programme rather than anything else. And interestingly, and this is why I think in the end we may win this debate, I think the mood about City Academies on my own back benches has changed, but it is actually really quite a small step from that to the trust that we are talking about now.

Question:

Prime Minister, all the people within your own party who oppose your plans, including Neil Kinnock, have they simply not understood it and therefore a bit more clarification will put them right, or are you actually going to have to make some real changes in order to get their support?

Prime Minister:

I find some of the stuff about selection a bit puzzling because it is obvious from the White Paper, as I was saying a moment or two ago, it is not our purpose to re-introduce selection, and there is a technical issue about schools being their own admissions authority and so on that I won't bother going into, but it is absolutely clear from the White Paper that we are not suggesting these schools should be free to return to selection by academic ability, and that has been clear throughout. So in that sense when people talk about selection, I don't quite understand why they say that given what the White Paper says. But I have to be frank about it, I think some of what was being said last Thursday is an attack on the whole concept, and well that is a debate we are going to have to have because I am very, very sure in my own mind that based on what has worked over the past few years, this is the right way for our country to go. And this is a very simple call to my mind. Look at what works in the British education system well in terms of the non-selective sector, and you see certain things stand out, certain characteristics all the way through, and we have got to take those characteristics and push them right throughout the system, and we have got to empower schools and the parents and teachers at that school to do the best for their school. Now that is within the proper provision for fair admissions and all the rest of it, but you know I find when people say this extraordinary thing about well if you get a good school, the problem is people want to go to it.

Question:

That was the Deputy Prime Minister who said that.

Prime Minister:

Well I am sure he can't have said it in quite that way, but I think we have got to absolutely work out where we stand on this issue as a political party, because you will never explain that to the British public, quite rightly. The British public thinks that good schools should be allowed to expand and they think that if a school is an average school, help them become a good school, and let nothing stand in the way of that because the children come first and their opportunities come first. And that is why when Nick asked me that at the very beginning, in a sense it is absolutely the right way to put it. And whenever I look at education, in a sense I speak as a parent first and as a politician second. I know what I wanted for my own children, what I want for my own children, and that is what I expect other parents to want, and our job should be to help them get it, not to stand in the way of them and say no we know better than you what is good for your child. That is not the way to do it.

Question:

Prime Minister, just going back to this specific issue of selection, regardless of the confusion over it, one of the demands by your opponents is that the admissions code is given greater legal teeth, made more legally binding. Are you prepared to do that?

Prime Minister:

You know I can only say what I have said before about that. The reason why we are not in favour of putting this code into statute, it already is a statutory code of practice, it already is legally binding. But when people say these schools will become their own admissions authority, well a third of the schools already are, all church schools are their own admissions authority, the foundation schools are their own admissions authority. Now this is not therefore the breach of some great new principle, the fact is they are all subject to the code and the code is legally binding. Now as I say we have always made it clear we are against a return to selection by academic ability, but I can't agree, for the reasons we have given on many occasions, that this code becomes statutory.

Question:

Again another demand of some of the rebels on your own side relates to Andrew Adonis. Are you prepared to sacrifice Andrew Adonis to get your reforms through?

Prime Minister:

You go and talk to people that Andrew deals with out in the school sector and they will tell you of his remarkable commitment and high ability, and I hope that is a sufficient answer to that one.

Question:

On the arguments on selection, what the rebels say is this, that at the moment even though academic selection is against the law it is happening by the back door. And the example they give, going back to the London Oratory again, is that popular schools use techniques like interviews in order to select, and with the London Oratory, even though that was against the code of admissions and the local adjudicator ruled against it, the school continues interviewing. Now why that is a problem is that it isn't a problem for the London Oratory because they can cream off the best pupils, the problem is with the other schools in the area, and they say that is what is damaging.

Prime Minister:

Yes, but again this is why I think this selection issue is a bit of a red herring issue in the way that it is described. The churches have come out against it, and I am not going to get into the particular instance of the Oratory, but the churches have come out against interviewing, the numbers of schools that do it are very, very small, I can't remember, it is a handful, but the idea that all schools are going down this path, it is not right. And that is why I say there is a certain part of this that is about raising this issue of selection because people know that is against what we want to do, and therefore if they can show, well it is really a backdoor way of selection, it can galvanise support against the measures. We have made it absolutely clear that we are not in favour of a return to academic selection, that is why we introduced the 1998 legislation for Heaven's sake, it introduced all this and prevented it. And there is no evidence that this is a great widespread practice in British schools. Indeed as I say, you have got foundation schools that are their own admissions authority, voluntary aided, ie church schools, that are their own admissions authorities and the vast bulk of them, with the few exceptions you mention, do not engage in the practice of interviewing in order to distinguish between kids on the basis of academic ability. So I don't think that is the heart of the issue, if I can say this very respectfully. And I think what was quite helpful about last Thursday's debate, or exercise, was that it did actually throw up what is at the heart of the issue, and that is should schools, if they want to, be able to develop, as many successful schools have, by having an external partner, so it could be universities, it could be charities, it could be business foundations, having greater freedom over how they manage their affairs, should schools be able to do that and develop, as many successful schools are, as of right or only with the permission of the local authority or central government? That is the heart of this and that is why it is such an important issue. And I am afraid on that particular point, you are either in favour of that or you are against it, and I am in favour of it.

Question:

Should interviews be banned?

Prime Minister:

Well interviews, as I have said already, the churches have made it clear that they are against interviews being used as a backdoor route to selection, and so I just don't see this myself as the central issue, but there it is.

Question:

Prime Minister, there are allegations that British diplomats in Moscow have been involved in some rather curious espionage. What is your attitude to this? Are you prepared to hold up your hand and say well this is the kind of thing that everybody does, the Russians are probably doing it in London as well, or do you believe this is a fabrication designed to enable Moscow to crack down on NGOs? And on the second issue, President Chirac says he is willing to use his nuclear weapons against rogue states that sponsor terrorism, are you?

Prime Minister:

Mmm, right. First of all in respect of the...look I only saw it myself on teletext this morning the business about Russia and I am afraid that you are going to get the old stock in trade of never commenting on security matters, except where we want to obviously. I think the less said about that one the better.

In respect of what President Chirac said, I haven't carefully analysed what he said, but I strongly endorse what he is saying about the threat today coming from rogue states, and states that are developing in breach of international obligations a nuclear capability and we do have to be very, very careful about it. Now I am not going to enunciate, and I don't know whether he did incidentally because I have only seen reports of it, any nuclear doctrine, that is not my purpose, but I think that any leader of any country today recognises that this is the nature of the threat we face and it has obviously changed in recent years.

Question:

Prime Minister, on the BNFL sale of Westinghouse, is this something that you regard as a purely commercial matter, or is it something that Ministers are going to take an interest in, and if so what is going to be guiding their thinking?

Prime Minister:

I think I will get you an answer on that rather than waffle off the top of my head about it.

Question:

You have talked to President Bush about it apparently.

Prime Minister:

Well it is news to me, I must say.

Question:

You would have no problem with selling it to the Japanese?

Prime Minister:

I think Rob, rather than sort of sauntering into that particular minefield I might just get you the official line, which I am sure will help you a great deal.

Question:

The young people, you can't rely on them. Prime Minister, you said a moment ago you didn't know anything about the allegations made in Moscow this morning. I think probably for some of us, that is surprising. It was reported 4 or 5 hours ago, you are coming to a public press conference.

Prime Minister:

No, I didn't see it until I saw it on teletext, I am not saying I haven't asked about it.

Question:

They are keeping secrets from you. It is your choice, but I mention it only because on a number of occasions we have been in a similar situation here in London, which has caused controversy since your last press conference, was the matter of rendition, where you said in both the Commons and at press conferences that you didn't know much about it. People have since alleged well you must have done, and obviously you know more about it now. So I wondered if you could give us an up-date on this issue which has aroused so much heat but not much light? And secondly the Iraqi elections the other day, announced at the weekend, they can't have all been bad news because the left-wing press didn't cover them very much, but it did look as if our predictions made here to you, and rejected by you, that the Shiite parties with theological ambitions would do extremely well and dominate the new settlement, look as if they are close to being fulfilled. I wonder whether you could give us your take on the election outcome and where we are going from here.

Prime Minister:

Right, on rendition, I may be able to offer you neither heat nor light. All I have said about it is that I know America has this practice. We don't. I think Jack has disclosed any of the cases that have ever been put to us, but as far as I am aware the Americans do not operate this, except in circumstances where the law of the country concerned, and the consent of the government concerned are compatible with what they are doing. But I don't know any more about it than that.

Question:

You have not made enquiries as to whether people have been illegally transported through this country from Place A to B?

Prime Minister:

No. As Jack has said, we have looked carefully at whether there have been any requests made to us, and I think we have disclosed the circumstances in which those requests were made, and I think we have been as open as we possibly can about it. But I don't know any more than we have already put out there, I think we have been extremely open about it. Look, the idea, well anyway I won't go back over it.

Question:

Well do go back over it because if you are getting it from teletext too then ...

Prime Minister:

I know, but you know there is a limit to how much teletext can take in one day.

Now on the second point and the Iraqi elections, I don't think these results were very surprising to people, but I think there is an overwhelming desire in Iraq, from the information I have, for there to be a unity government, not a sectarian government, and that is the key, and that is what we want, that is what the majority of Iraqis want. And you have got a situation where the Sunni participation has meant that you have got a strong Sunni presence now in the parliament, you have obviously got a strong Kurdish presence as well as the UIA. And I think there is a great desire to find as broad-based a government as possible and we should be helping people do that. And if I could just make this point, I think the very fact that so many people have voted in Iraq and that they are trying to make normal politics work, seem to me to give every justification for what we are doing in Iraq today, where after all for the last two and a half years we have been under a UN mandate, British, American and other troops, to help them achieve that democracy. And if terrorists or insurgents try to stop them getting their democratic rights, our job should be to stick up for the democrats. I have really never understood what the opposite argument could be.

Question:

I wanted to ask you about Iran please. You have been trying this policy of the carrot and stick, as we were told by the Foreign Office, that you offer them things, joining the World Trade Organisation so that in a sense they would give up some of their nuclear programme, but you haven't offered them anything on the political level. Would you consider offering something on the political level with regard to your attitude towards Syria, their ally?

Prime Minister:

Like what?

Question:

Like for example the pressures that are being put on Syria at the moment are a little bit excessive, and Syria could be used in a peace keeping force in Iraq in the future, if as Dick Cheney is saying he wants some Arab participation. You have very good relations with Syria, do you think you should change the policy a little bit so that the carrot to Iran could be also political in terms of improving the situation over Syria?

Prime Minister:

I understand why you ask that question, but I have got to make one thing very clear, both in respect of Syria and Iran. We are happy to have better relations with Syria and Iran, we have no desire whatever to act against people in Iran or people in Syria, but the governments of those two countries have to understand that the only basis of friendly relations is that they abide by their international obligations and do not support terrorism in other countries. Now I am afraid at the moment that is not the case. Iran is giving active support to terrorists round the Middle East and elsewhere and there is a situation obviously as a result of what has happened in Lebanon where there are very serious question marks about what has happened in Syria. So I would say to you that there would be a terrible misunderstanding, indeed a terrible miscalculation being made, both by the Syrian and Iranian regimes if they thought that we were interested in destabilising those two countries. We are not, we want good relations with those two countries, but it has got to be on the basis of a common understanding as to what is acceptable in the international community and what isn't. Now if either of those two regimes is prepared to meet us on that ground there is a different relationship that is possible, but it can't be done on the basis that they support the types of activities I am afraid it seems as if they have been supporting in the past few years.

Question:

Prime Minister, your answer to rendition surely poses a really serious moral question which is posed first by Guantanamo, and secondly by rendition itself. On the case of Guantanamo, we didn't like it, we got our people out of it but we have basically done nothing to get it closed, despite the fact that it is clearly illegal and certainly morally unacceptable. On rendition, you say you have no evidence, but there is evidence that rendition has been going on, and the Americans have even accepted that it is going on, that is the removal of people from one place potentially probably to be tortured in another place. Certainly we know of people tortured in Egypt, in Syria and in Abu Dhabi. Why are you not prepared to use your position of moral integrity in that you say we don't practice it, to lean on your own friends, on our own friends - the United States - to come back into line with the international community and rule out both rendition and Guantanamo, both of which surely do a disservice to your efforts against terrorism?

Prime Minister:

Well in respect of Guantanamo, I have made my view on that clear for a very long time on why I think it is an anomaly that has to end. And I think in respect of rendition, look America wouldn't agree with your description of what their policy is or how it is applied. You know you are assuming that they are deliberately ...

Question:

Inaudible.

Prime Minister:

What they say is that in circumstances where they believe someone may be engaged in terrorism, and they have done for a long time, pre-dating September 2001, indeed the cases that Jack Straw was talking about, I think I am right in saying happened under the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration, and they are saying they do it only with the consent of the country concerned, under the law of the country concerned and in circumstances where assurances are given about the treatment of the person returned to the other country. Look, I am not in a position to say whether in each case that procedure has been followed or not, but that is what they say, and therefore they don't accept the premise upon which your question is raised, and I think it is an issue to raise with them. But what is wrong is the notion that this has somehow come into being, and which is why you link it into Guantanamo, since this administration has come to power. As far as I am aware, that has been the American position on this so-called rendition for many, many years.

Question:

You said, Prime Minister, that you want to get those on incapacity benefit back into work, but there are other groups of people who are out of the workplace for many years, like for instance stay at home lone parents. What are your views, or do you intend to do anything about that particular group?

Prime Minister:

The paper tomorrow will address the issue of lone parents as well, and over the past few years we have increased significantly the numbers of lone parents who have come off benefit and gone back to work, we want to improve that still further, particularly for lone parents whose children are at secondary school age, and we want to give the help and the incentives for people to do that, and things like childcare and Work Search and so on, there are a lot of jobs out there that people could do. But you know we have got to be careful all the time we are not in a situation where people are encouraged effectively to stay on benefit when they could be at work, and could be at work with no detriment to their children.

Question:

Just back on education, you were talking about some of the myths around selection as you see it in terms of this White Paper, do you feel there are a lot of myths or romanticising of LEAs, particularly amongst some of your party colleagues, and do you perhaps see it as more of a dead hand over the years than they do, they see it entirely as a force for good. Would you sign up to a Bill which enhanced the powers of the LEAs? Some of your colleagues are talking about hit squads on admissions and LEAs deciding growth on schools, that sort of thing. And it ties in with this, you are getting tasters being fed back to you of what is in the Select Committee report, does that look like a safety net you would be happy falling into off your tightrope?

Prime Minister:

I think the Select Committee is best left to its own devices and it will produce its own report in its own way, that is up to them. But no, I certainly don't think it would be sensible to have hit squads policing admissions in that way at all. However, on the other point you make, I would like to say this about Local Education Authorities. Some have done a very good job in raising school standards. The whole point about local education authorities today however is that they don't run schools, they haven't really "run schools" since local management schools were introduced back in the 1980s. And therefore in a sense what we are doing is offering a far clearer strategic role to local authorities to become not just commissioners of new schools and so on, but to give them greater power in this sense to be able to intervene where there is failure and lift the standards. I would like to see local authorities, and I know some of them are already looking at this, which is why I think this debate is going to shift, soon I hope, over the coming weeks as people see what advantages there are. If I was a local authority studying this now, I would say what are the opportunities in this for me? Why am I not getting a whole group of local business people, local universities, seeing how we could get the right synergy between what they do, both in vocational skills and academic education, and have that as part of what is happening in our schools. And actually there are schools already in the country where this is happening to great effect. In other words, release the tremendous energy there is in the business, charitable, voluntary, university sector to help schools raise their standards and introduce higher qualities both of teaching and learning within their schools. And local authorities could become the people who champion that. What they shouldn't do is become the people who turn round and say No when say a successful school says look we can do more in our local community.

That is the issue and I think you will find some of the good local authorities will already be doing this. And the interesting thing incidentally is that if you look at what has happened in other areas of local authority work, for example housing, they have been moving in that direction. You know a lot of what local authorities today do is about enabling rather than directly providing services themselves. I don't regard local authorities as a dead hand at all, in fact I think that local authorities have got a great role, provided the role is you know lifting standards and refusing to accept failure. What makes me, I was going to say, angry is the wrong word, but I get really concerned when I hear people talk about how local schools develop, and this idea that if you get a really good school it creams off the best pupils from the other schools. Look, the answer to that is not to stop that good school being good, the answer to that is to go and find out why the other schools aren't so good and lift the standards in those schools and ask why is that good school good. And what I am saying to you is the evidence is there in the system already, it is not as if we don't have good schools in the UK, we have good schools, good state schools, good non-selective state schools, but they have certain things in common, apart from a very good head teacher and committed teaching staff, they have this individual drive and sense of purpose and ethos in the school, they have a very strong commitment to discipline and they often use people from the outside, external partners, to help them raise the standards in their school. Now if that is what works there, give the power to all schools to do that. And that is why I say this thing is so critical, it is not about trying to say if a school does well that is a problem, we should be levelling up. That is why this argument is very, very important.

Question:

On police restructuring, are you in favour of a single north east police force, or as a Durham MP do you see any merit in the alternative view put forward by Cleveland police whereby they would take over south Durham, leave north Durham go to Northumbria, and you would have two regional police forces rather than one?

Prime Minister:

Well because I am not just a constituency Member of Parliament, I am also the Prime Minister, so I will have to wait until we get all the representations in. But my own view of this is that there will be certain things that are best done at a strategic level across forces, and then there are certain issues where people will want a more local component, and getting the right balance in those things is difficult. But I am aware there is a huge debate going on in County Durham and the north east, and if you will forgive me Gerry I think I will wait until all the submissions are in before I decide on that.

Question:

Two questions. You said today that the 11-Plus is an old-fashioned concept, that it categorises children as successes or failures at the age of 11. If you do think that is the case, why don't you ban it? And secondly, as you familiarise yourself with the statistics of Glasgow, do you think it is an indictment of this government that after 8 years 50% of the possible working population in some areas are on incapacity benefit?

Prime Minister:

Well on the latter point, we have actually got many more people off benefit and into work in Glasgow as we have throughout the whole country, and it is possible, to take individual wards where the situation is still very serious, and that is one of the reasons for the Welfare Green Paper tomorrow. But let no-one be under any doubt, there are many fewer people on benefit today than there were 8 years ago, and that is good, and it is the same in Glasgow as elsewhere. And as for the 11-Plus, as I have said all the way through on grammar schools, I don't think to go back to a grammar school system is sensible, but neither do I think it would be at all sensible for us to go and pursue the remaining, what is it, 160 grammar schools, I just don't think that is a system for an entire country today, that is all I am saying.

Question:

Just to follow up on Catherine's last question about poverty and outcomes. The Scotsman earlier this month compiled some ONS data that showed there is currently a gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest areas of Scotland which at its highest is almost 33 years. Again after nearly 9 years is that acceptable? How do you explain it to those people that they might live three decades less than someone who might live 3 or 4 miles away?

Prime Minister:

Yes, but I think everyone knows the reasons for that are quite... it is not about their geographical location, is it, it is to do with their lifestyle and the life chances that they have had. And the whole purpose of increasing people's life chances and trying to get them to take a better view of their own healthcare is what the government's programmes are about, but these are long-term programmes. The idea that any government can come and within 8 years people in an area start, you know when there have been years, and years, and years, decades, generations that that has built up, that you are going to be able to transform that, I think is a slightly unfair criticism. But if you look at a programme like Sure Start for example, you will see I think in the years to come major returns from that, but it will be long after I stop being active in politics and maybe you stop being active in journalism.

Question:

Inaudible.

Prime Minister:

So it is quite a long time, in other words.

Question:

I understand, Prime Minister, that you are going to meet the Taoiseach probably in Dublin this week, against the background of suggestions that the International Commission on Decommissioning report is not going to be in your favour or in favour of the Irish political settlement.

Prime Minister:

Well I would wait until you get that report. I don't think we should speculate about that at all.

Question:

Could you give us any indication of what you will be discussing with the Taoiseach?

Prime Minister:

Well obviously the way forward for the process and how we get the institutions back up and running again, that is the key thing that everyone wants to see. But I wouldn't necessarily take at face value some of the speculation there has been about the ICD report, at least as far as I know.

Question:

Prime Minister, you have always made very clear that you are against any negotiations with terrorists. What stance would you take to deal with Hamas which temporarily, and for political reasons, seems to indicate it might stop being a terrorist organisation? On the other hand it has still got a charter commitment to seek the destruction of Israel, is that something which would bar any negotiations? And can we have some assurance from you that Israel would not be forced into negotiations with Hamas, and some assurance that Britain is not negotiating publicly or privately with Hamas? And second of all, can I briefly ask you, in view of the fact of it is international and UK Holocaust Memorial Day later this week, what advice would you give to the Iranian President who is planning a conference on holocaust denial, and what would you tell any other governments, any other countries that plan to attend such a conference?

Prime Minister:

Well on the very last point, I am shocked if those reports are correct, that he is actually going to hold a conference on denying the holocaust, that is shocking, ridiculous, stupid, take whatever adjective you want and apply it, and I would be actually very surprised if any serious government or country anywhere gave that any credibility, and perhaps he should come and see the evidence of the holocaust himself in the countries of Europe.

Look, in relation to Hamas, I think Jerry it is very difficult for us to be in a position of negotiating or talking to Hamas unless there is a very clear renunciation of terrorism, and it is very difficult. Now we don't know what the election results are going to be, and there is no question of Israel being, well first of all Israel couldn't, and wouldn't, be forced to do what it didn't want to do. Obviously it is a difficult situation and we had better just wait and see what happens in the election, but it is a serious problem I am afraid. In the end all organisations have to choose whether they want a path of violence or a path of politics and there is no way they will get anywhere with a path of violence.

Question:

May I wish you a Happy New Year Prime Minister, this is your first after the New Year.

Prime Minister:

Thank you, thank you for being the first out of all of them. I am very surprised at the others.

Question:

We were too shy.

Prime Minister:

May I say happy and peaceful New Year of course. And second, I have two questions if I may. First, following from what Jerry has been asking, if indeed Hamas is being elected, and indeed is taking part in a government in Palestine, would you be talking to them and what would be the position specifically on that, because I think there was an indication that the Americans will not, somebody in Israel said. Also, what do you think is the biggest threat these days in the area of the Middle East, in the Gulf, is it Iran, is it the Palestinian situation, is it Lebanon, Syria, is it Iraq?

Prime Minister:

Well I think I don't really have anything more to say on the issue of Hamas, we will just have to wait and see what the election results are and then obviously we will state our position depending on what those results are. But as I said before, it is very difficult to see how you can have a proper relationship with people who are engaged in supporting terrorism. I continue to believe, all of these are major problems in the Middle East, and the only answer to it is to fight for democracy and the spread of proper democratic and human rights throughout the entire region, and that is the best way of that region developing in the Middle East, and it is also the best way of enhancing our own security, and that means trying to resolve the Palestinian issue of course, it means supporting the Iraqi people in democracy, it means supporting democratic forces in Iran who want to have a proper democracy there, and it means insisting that Iran, and Syria and other countries accept the sovereign and democratic right of other countries to decide their own future, and that is why the situation in the Lebanon is also important. But the reason why this is not an incidental but a fundamental struggle for our country here in Britain, in the United States, elsewhere in Europe as to what happens in the Middle East is because what happens there will affect dramatically our own security in the years to come. I think there will be an interesting time when we have the Afghan conference next week to take stock of what is happening in Afghanistan, and I want in the next few weeks to make a speech about where we are in international affairs in terms of the struggle against international terrorism, but don't be in any doubt that the reason why there is increased terrorist activity in Afghanistan is precisely to stop that country becoming a secular democracy, that is what they want to stop. And so I keep saying our job has got to be to help them, and not to give up as the terrorists fight us.

Question:

There is a heated debate going on in Holland about the up-coming NATO mission, about the risks and the necessities. Since this is a British-led mission, what is your message or your advice to the Dutch, and if the Dutch were to withdraw would the UK just simply step in or would the mission be in disarray?

Prime Minister:

I don't want to, I know at a sensitive time in your politics, I don't want to intervene in that. I just want to say why I think the mission in Afghanistan is so important. A few years ago Afghanistan was turned into a large training camp for terrorism by the Taliban. If they were able to get a foothold again in any part of the country, they would go back to the same activities, and there is therefore a fundamental security interest in respect of all NATO countries in stopping them doing so. That is why this issue is important. And it is a very difficult situation when our troops go into a situation of danger, that; let's be quite clear, if democracy is defeated in Afghanistan, which it won't be, but if it were to be, and if the terrorists were to get back in charge of Afghanistan, it would only be a matter of time before the impact of that was felt on our own streets, whether in Britain, or in Holland, or in France, or in Germany or anywhere else. That is why as I say the general tenor of what President Chirac was saying last week was both interesting and instructive, that that is the threat today we face. And so the reason why, whatever the past issues to do with for example Iraq are concerned where people obviously have very, very different views, there is no doubt at all what the security interest of our countries are today, which is to make sure that we defeat the people who want to use those countries as a base for terrorism, and that is what we have got to do. So it is a very, very important issue indeed.

Question:

So would you step in if the Dutch were to pull out?

Prime Minister:

Well I think we should wait for your decision there, but I think it is best as I say if I don't intervene on that one.

Question:

The western Australian Premier, Geoff Gallup, recently resigned, he is an old friend of yours from your university days. He resigned because of depression. What were your thoughts when you heard about him stepping down because of mental illness?

Prime Minister:

Well obviously as you probably know I have spoken to Geoff several times in the past 10 days or so. Geoff Gallup was in my view one of the outstanding politicians of our generation, an absolutely brilliant man, a fantastic person as well, and as people in western Australia will know, a person of tremendous warmth, integrity and achievement in western Australia. And so obviously I was really sorry that he took that decision but I know he did it in the best interests of the state and his own family and his own health. And I have no doubt at all he will bounce back very quickly because he is a quite exceptional person.

Question:

Returning to the Middle East, what is your comment on the remarks made by the former Syrian Vice President on the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri, through the many interviews he gave in Paris. And do you support the move by the French authorities to gag him?

Prime Minister:

Well I wasn't aware about the latter part of that, but all I have done is read what he said, so I don't know whether it is true or it is untrue. But I do think it underlines yet again that there are serious questions that the UN will obviously carry on investigating about the assassination of Mr Hariri and also the situation in the Lebanon. And that is why, to go back to a question your colleague asked earlier, it is important that people understand there is no desire on our part to have anything other than good relations with Syria, with Iran and with other countries, but it has got to be on the basis of some common rules in the international community, and one rule is that you don't in any shape or form implicitly or by any act support terrorism or assassination in those other countries.