navigation for accessNumber 10 Downing Street
'*'prime minister'*''*'
'*'
'*'contact'*''*''*'biography'*''*''*'speeches'*''*''*'PM's office'*'
'*'
'*'government'*''*'
'*'
'*'cabinet'*''*''*'guide to legislation'*''*''*'guide to government'*''*''*'in your area'*''*''*'links'*'
'*'
'*'newsroom'*''*'
'*'
'*'latest news'*''*''*'news by subject'*''*''*'media centre'*''*''*'email updates'*''*''*'archive'*'
'*'
'*'downing street'*''*'
'*'
'*'welcome'*''*''*'history'*''*''*'PMs in history'*''*''*'tour'*''*''*'on this day'*''*''*'photo gallery'*'
'*'
'*'broadcasts'*''*'
'*'
'*'PMQs'*''*''*'PM's statements'*''*''*'no 10 WAP'*'
'*'
Learn more about the Cabinet.

28/04/2003 16:00

print this page
home > newsroom > latest news > PM focuses on Iraq and domestic agenda

PM focuses on Iraq and domestic agenda

At his latest monthly press conference, Prime Minister Tony Blair has said there is much left to do in Iraq to give its people the future they deserve. Focusing on domestic issues, Mr Blair said progress was being made on issues like the economy and public services. Recent figures, added Mr Blair, show that maximum waiting times in hospitals are now down from 18 to 12 months, meeting a key target for the NHS.

Asked about the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Prime Minister said that the first priority was to stabilise the country, the second was the humanitarian situation, and the third was to make sure that weapons of mass destruction were investigated.

"I remain confident that they will be found," he said, "the reason we have had 12 years of UN Resolutions is precisely because we know that those weapons existed."

Read an edited transcript of the event below:

PRIME MINISTER:

Good morning everyone. There is obviously much left to be done in Iraq to ensure that the Iraqi people get the future that they deserve, and there is of course unfinished business in the Middle East, though I am pleased to see there is now the prospect of progress happening there, and I am very happy to take questions on both of those issues, but today I actually want to focus on the challenges ahead here in Britain.

Again here there is real progress on the economy, on employment on public services on crime. But now is not the time for a quiet life. It is time to hold firm to the path of radical reform, because it is reform that provides the best route to a more just and a more effective society and economy - reform tied to sustained investment.

The National Health Service has just met key milestones. The maximum waiting times are now down from 18 months to 12 months and are now set for further, first to 9 and then to 6 months as the maximum waiting time in the next two years. May I just point out, despite some of the things that people read occasionally, every single waiting time and waiting list national indicator is more positive than in 1997, and that is after years of rising waiting times and lists, and there are nearly 50,000 more nurses in the National Health Service.

School literacy for our primary schools is now third in the world according to the independent report published this month, and from the weekly reports I get on the situation in respect of asylum, the situation as a result of the legislative and other changes we introduced last year is rapidly improving and I can tell you I am absolutely confident that we will meet our September target of having halved asylum applications from their peak. According to the British Crime Survey, crime is down some 28% since 1997. In each area there is no room for complacency, however, and there is more change that needs to come.

Our purpose is to take the 1945 Welfare State settlement, radically redraw it, and show that for today's world public services collectively provided can deliver opportunity and security for all. Not top down, one size fits all, a sort of command and control Public Service, but instead setting an enabling framework and letting local innovation, diversity, choice, services built around the consumer and the citizen, be of the paramount consideration.

That is the context for Foundation Hospitals for example. Foundation Hospitals will be NHS hospitals just the same as any other, but the difference is that we are creating a new form of not for profit organisation, an organisation that will be committed to serving the local community, with local stakeholders on the board, and crucially giving those local hospitals the freedoms they need to serve local people in the way that they choose. That will allow them not just to provide a good Health Service for people, but to tackle particularly the problems of ill health in some of the most deprived areas of the country. And our aim is that over time, all hospitals will get the chance to be run in this way. A few days ago I met some of the leading chief executives inside the Health Service who are desperate to use these new-found freedoms to try to develop their own local hospitals in the way that will best serve local people. They know that there is much more that they could do to improve patient care if they had the freedom, and we know that we have to make this happen.

So, I believe that we have come a long way in the past six years. The lowest inflation, the lowest mortgage rates, the lowest unemployment for decades, and now the most sustained investment in our public services the country has ever seen. But in the coming months we are determined to drive through the changes to the Criminal Justice System, the Asylum System, to our schools to our National Health Service that will result in a reshaped Welfare State, one for the modern world where we keep the basic values and principles of the public service, but ensure that they have the enterprise, the creativity, the local innovation that they need.

As Prime Minister, obviously particularly in the past few months, I have had to spend a large part of my time on international issues, and I think as we all know today more than ever before those issues are linked. If there are problems of security and instability in the world, they quickly impact on this country and on the living standards and prosperity of our people. But we must never lose sight as a government of the issues that directly concern people - their jobs, their living standards, the cost of their homes, the state of their schools and hospitals, safety on their streets, order and stability in their communities. Every improvement we have made in all of these areas has only ever come however through change and reform. Sometimes it is unpopular, almost always it is controversial, but it is the necessary thing to do in order to make sure that we deliver the public services, the criminal justice system, the asylum system, that people require.

Now is the time, over these coming months to drive this programme of reform through, and we will not hesitate to do it. Thank you.

QUESTION:

Prime Minister, could I return to where you started and Iraq. You have had some of the top Iraqi scientists in custody now for a couple of weeks, you have a lot of people on the ground there, and the most sophisticated intelligence operation the world has ever seen, you still have not found these fearsome weapons of mass destruction you were telling us about. How long is it going to be, and what will people draw from the failure to produce those weapons if you don't find them?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, I would counsel people not to be jumping around gleefully a little too early on this. It is correct that we have in place a very deliberate process where we are interviewing people, we are assessing sites. We started off, I think, with around about almost 150 sites and we were beginning to look at 7 of them. Actually the sites that we have got as the result of information now is closer to 1,000 in the whole of the country. We have looked at many of those, but nothing like a majority of them. It is true that we are interviewing scientists and others, but our first priority has got to be to stabilise the country, the second is the humanitarian situation, and the third - and we can take our time about this and so we should - is to make sure that we investigate the weapons of mass destruction, and we will do that. And as I say every time I am asked, I remain confident that they will be found.

QUESTION:

How concerned are you that as a direct result of government policy some schools actually had less money this year than they did last year? And have you taken the opportunity to talk to the Chairman of the School Governors who is a friend of yours and adviser of your wife, Fiona Miller, who has actually written to parents to explain that they will only be able to afford paper and pencil as a result of government tax increases and other changes.

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, first of all let's be very clear, we are putting a huge amount of investment into schools. Charles Clarke will make a Statement on Friday after an analysis, literally Local Education Authority by Local Education Authority, of what money has been unallocated that central government has given to local government, what money has been allocated to local schools. There are of course a lot of costs that schools have got because of more generous pay settlements, because of issues to do with pensions and so on, but there has been a minimum floor level of funding given to every single authority, so we need to find out exactly where this money is tied up, but there is a 10% increase that has gone into schools this year, so in respect of each of these authorities, we need to get to the facts and then we need to take the appropriate action, and that is what we will do.

QUESTION:

And is it the case you are being told that there is no money available, indeed there is a need for cuts, I just wonder how much of a surprise that has come to you as Prime Minister obviously believing that you have allocated more money for education, to find that a school just down the road, run by an adviser to you, has actually got less money not more under this government.

PRIME MINISTER:

This is exactly what we have got to investigate. The reason I'm not disputing that the schools are saying is, the question is why has that happened in circumstances where such a large amount of money has gone. And of course do remember it is not every Local Education Authority that is in this position but there do appear to be Local Education Authorities whose schools are in this position. We need to find out why, and we need to take the necessary action. But I don't think there is any dispute about this, the overall levels of government investment going into our schools is higher than it has ever been. It is a massive increase that we are putting in, so if this money is not getting down to schools in certain areas - not in all areas incidentally, in certain areas - we need to find out why.

QUESTION:

I wonder if I could ask you about the pack of cards, the Iraqi officials who have now been taken into custody. What in your view should happen to them? How should they be treated? Would you consider offering a deal to Tariq Aziz to come across? Do you feel Guantanamo Bay would be remotely appropriate in these circumstances and what do you say to the families of the British Guantanamo Bay detainees who believe now that they have probably given what information that might be useful and that perhaps Britain should do more about them.

PRIME MINISTER:

In respect of the first, I think for those people that have committed serious crimes where we are still in discussion with the Americans and with others as to what the appropriate way to proceed is, I have to say to you that I am absolutely mystified by the Tariq Aziz story. I do not think there is any possibility of that happening as far as I am aware. No such plan has ever been under discussion anywhere, so that is what I would simply say about that, and I think that people would rightly regard it as a very odd thing to do.

In relation to Guantanamo Bay, the problem is this, and I have said this on many occasions, it is a situation that cannot continue indefinitely and it is in many ways an unsatisfactory situation. On the other hand it isn't actually true that any information these people have they have already given to us, because what is actually happening is that as we get more information about what Al-Qaeda may be up to, we are able to cross-check that with some of the people who are in Guantanamo Bay, so there is a continuing resource, if you like, that they are providing. Now that doesn't detract in any way from what I said to you earlier.

That situation can't continue but it isn't as if they knew a fixed amount and we needed a certain amount of time to get that from them. It is also that we are learning new things about what Al-Qaeda are up to world-wide at the moment and we are having to cross-check that, and some of that cross-checking is useful in relation to the people there.

QUESTION:

You were absolutely passionate about the need for war because of the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and how Saddam is the person who has used them in the past, does it surprise you at all that in a hole, faced with the destruction of his regime, he didn't use them, and now do we need to get the UN involved to verify if any weapons are found, rather than just the US and us doing it?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, on the independent verification as I have been saying recently we need to discuss this with the UN and amongst the allies, but I have got no doubt at all that we need some process of independent verification. In respect of the first point, it is very important people realise two things. The first is there isn't any doubt that Iraq has had weapons of mass destruction. That is not in dispute, not from anybody. Indeed you will recall that it was only after 4 years of denial that we discovered they had the biological weapons programme that we thought they had. Iraq denied completely any nuclear weapons programme, and it was later discovered that they had one, and the reason we have had 12 years of UN Resolutions is precisely because we know that those weapons existed.

Now the second thing that is our case, the case that we have been making to people over the last few months, is that prior to the inspectors coming back in because there was a 6-month period if you like when it was clear the United States and ourselves were going to take action, and also clear that inspectors might be coming in, there was a 6-month campaign of concealment of these weapons. That is our intelligence, borne out by sufficient intelligence that there is no doubt in my mind that is what happened, and as I think I said to you either before the conflict started or possibly even in the course of it, one benefit of that was that it was going to be far more difficult for them to reconstitute that material to use in a situation of conflict, and in any event as you know, we were giving very strong warnings to the commanders in the field as to what would happen if they did. But I suggest to people - before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a little bit because there is a very deliberative process in place here, and there is no doubt that weapons of mass destruction existed, that they have been subject to this systematic campaign of concealment, and I hope that you understand that for very obvious reasons we are anxious not to start making the claims until we have absolutely bottomed out anything by way of information that comes to us.

QUESTION:

Doesn't this suggest that they are not as big a threat as you thought because they weren't used?

PRIME MINISTER:

No it doesn't because the question is if they were systematically concealed, they might not have been available for use in a conflict, it does not in the least follow from that that they couldn't have been reconstituted had we all left Iraq and the weapons inspectors not being able to carry out their job, it certainly does not in any shape or form mean that they would not have been a threat. I simply say to you, and obviously there is no way I've got of verifying all of this at the moment, but as more intelligence emerges, in particular from inside Iraq and from the former Iraqi Intelligence Unit, I think you will find increasing evidence of links between the previous Iraqi regime and terrorist organisations.

QUESTION:

As the ramifications of the Iraqi conflict play out in Europe, are you upset not to have been invited to tomorrow's discussions between the Germans, French and Belgians about a new defence arm for Europe. Are you worried that you, by talking to President Chirac about a European Defence dimension, let the genie out of the bottle and do you fear that this is an attempt to exclude a proper role for NATO, and for the US in the future defence of Europe?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, it is a meeting between 4 member states. I think there are 15 in the European Union, so we are not in a situation as uniquely not having been invited to this. We will wait and see what comes out of it, but we won't accept, and neither will the rest of Europe, accept anything that either undermines NATO, or conflicts with the basic principles of European defence that we have set out. And on the contrary, European defence was already an issue. What we have done is ensure that Britain does not have an empty chair in that debate, that it is there making sure that European defence develops in a way that is compatible with NATO. And I simply repeat, European defence is necessary. There will be circumstances in which the United States of America does not want to become engaged. In those circumstances, Europe has got to have the capability to act and I read what I read about this Conference, but let's wait and see what actually transpires from it.

QUESTION:

Could I take the conversation back to domestic matters and follow up what Nick was saying on schools. You seem remarkably unflustered by this issue. Do you not realise just how bewildered millions of voters are on investment in schools and that taxes are already going in, to hear their local school is going to have cuts? And if I can also link into hospitals. There's lots of talk today about radical reforms and Foundation Hospitals. Are you prepared to need Conservative votes in the House of Commons to get this measure through?

PRIME MINISTER:

First of all, there is no point in my being, as you put it, flustered about this situation in schools. It doesn't follow from the fact that I am not flustered about it that I am not concerned. I've accepted there are real concerns because we are putting an enormous amount of money into schools. And if you look at the funding per pupil over the past 6 years it has risen dramatically, and the school results have risen too. We have got the best primary school results that this country has every seen, now voted third for literacy at primary school age in the whole of the world. We have got the best GCSE results this country has ever seen. So we have a lot not just to be proud of and to protect, we have a lot to advance in schools.

So if there are schools, as there are, that appear to be faced in certain areas - not all areas, not actually a majority of areas, but in certain areas - with cuts we have got to find out why, and all I am saying to you is let's find out the facts and then work out what we do about it, but you can't have a situation where we are putting this amount of money into schools, and the money is not actually reaching the schools. It has got to reach the schools, it is vitally important that it does so, because that money is raising standards in our schools the entire time, and I just say to you on schools and hospitals, I think there is a lag, and I say this particularly in relation to the NHS, between some of the perceptions about what is written, and actually what is happening in the National Health Service. Virtually every single objective group of people, and I would include in that the Modernisation Board staffed by people from the Health Service, independent people, not government people, but people who represent consultants, and doctors and nurses in the Health Service. Every single one of those people accepts that there is real improvement. Not that we have done the job yet, we haven't, and there is a long way to go, but there is real improvement. And if you look, for example at the most recent statistics in relation to cancer and cardiac treatment, there is real change happening. Now, as for Foundation Hospitals. I am aware of the concerns, but those concerns are in my view misplaced, and I will say this in the coming days, the issue of reform in public services, in health, in education, in criminal justice, in asylum, this is the big challenge that this government faces and if we walk away from that challenge and turn our back on reform, we will not just let the country down and it will be a terrible mistake.

QUESTION:

Prime Minister, do not British families of those who died in this war, the citizens who elected you to take this decision, have the right at this critical moment when the cause of the war still has not yet been recovered, despite the patience you urge on us, do we not have the right to know what method will be used to verify that any such weapons have been found, if they are found? In this interregnum during which they have not been found, there is surely the very real danger that such is the desperation of yourself and Mr Bush to ensure that such weapons are found, that something will be codded up. Just to ensure against that, and surely to give the most independent possible basis for verifying that these weapons of mass destruction are what they pose as, what is wrong with Mr Blix? What did he do wrong, what are the drawbacks to simply bringing back a group of people in which you personally vested great faith at the beginning of this process?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well first of all, the reason I am saying to you that there has to be independent verification is because I accept people will want that, and the reason I am simply being reserved about the exact method of independent verification is that that is something that is still under discussion.

QUESTION:

Why?

PRIME MINISTER:

Because it is important that we get it right. It is important that any system of verification is going to be one that actually works, and that is something we need to come to an agreement with between ourselves, our allies and the United Nations first, and when we come to that agreement we will tell you about it. But there is no doubt at all there has to be independent verification. Secondly, choose your language very carefully as well, because it is not correct that we do not have things that we now need actively to investigate at this stage. We do. And all I am saying to you is we are not making any announcements about finds of weapons of mass destruction until we are sure. But do not think there is not an awful lot of work going on of a very useful nature, but our priority has been, for very obvious reasons having fought a conflict, to get the security situation sorted out and then the humanitarian situation. And as for allegations that we are going to, I think you said, was it, cod something up, I hope you said that jokingly. There is nobody in any part of my administration, or who works for any of our services, that would ever agree to such a thing.

QUESTION:

But you haven't explained why Blix can't simply go back, he has a terrifically well equipped team, they have all the wherewithal, they know where everything is, they could go tomorrow.

PRIME MINISTER:

Jon, things have changed, there has been a conflict inbetween the UN inspectors being there and coming back now. So we need to discuss what is the right and proper way to get the independent verification.

QUESTION:

You said earlier ... on the economy and public services... will also be looking at the way that money has simply disappeared or gone astray in the education system as symptomatic of what is happening in the public services at large. They see council taxes going up, national insurance contributions going up, Gordon Brown sucking money out of people's pockets like a Dyson vacuum cleaner, splurging it into public services and it just disappears, and if there are any improvements at all it is pretty marginal.

PRIME MINISTER:

Well first of all, the national insurance rises for the Health Service, I just don't accept that there are no improvements going on in the Health Service, and what I simply ask you to do is to give a balanced picture. If you go to for example my own constituency, this was I think what we wanted to do last September before Iraq intervened, you go and see the changes in the National Health Service happening there. It simply is not correct to say that people are getting a lousy service out of the National Health Service. There is still a long way to go, but actually there are big improvements going on, there are more nurses, there are more doctors in the Health Service, there are the buildings going in, but there is also the change.

QUESTION:

Are they getting value for money?

PRIME MINISTER:

I believe that they are getting increasing value for money, yes, and I think there are still things that we have got to do. And remember, the foundation hospitals actually is just one part of the change programme. Again it would be a good thing if you guys could focus on some of the other changes that are happening. For example we are opening up the Health Service to outside providers for elective surgery that will over the next couple of years start providing 300,000 additional elective surgery every single year at these diagnostic and treatment centres. They are being provided by a range of public and private providers and they will make a big, big difference to the way that we engineer the system in the Health Service. For example this April, coming in this month, we are introducing the payment by results system within the Health Service which will mean that if hospitals perform more operations, they will actually get the financial awards for having done so, and that is going to be a huge financial incentive for people to be able to switch patients to different parts of the country. We have got the choice, first of all for heart surgery where it has been extremely important, and then now coming up in London where people are going to be able to choose to go anywhere they want if they wait past a certain time. So there are enormous changes going on in the Health Service at the moment, quite apart from the foundation hospitals and the Private Finance Initiative. And all I say to you is, put in a balanced picture. The fact is if you talk to people working in cancer services and cardiac services today in this country, I don't doubt if you want to you can find the person who says it is all terrible, but actually a balanced picture would show you considerable improvements in both of those services for ordinary people. So that is all I am saying to you, a sense of balance is all we need.

QUESTION:

Kevin Curran of the GNB in an interview today says there are going to be "huge fights" on PFI and foundation hospitals across the whole range. He also says that you and some other members of the Cabinet are "privileged" and you have never felt vulnerable in your lives and you simply don't understand. Are we to prepare for no room for manoeuvre there to the point where we get industrial action, and that is something that the consumers and the voters are simply going to have to live with as a price for reform?

PRIME MINISTER:

Again, I think over these last 6 years, I think if you were to tot up the number of times I was about to be hit by waves of industrial militancy, I reckon you would find it probably every six months for the last six years.

QUESTION:

The fire-fighters.

PRIME MINISTER:

Exactly, but if you look at the fire dispute, the reason you can go to that is that I think that has been, if you like, the big dispute, and even that, with the greatest respect, hardly has much public support left and isn't in fact as we speak actually happening. So it is up to the unions, they can either play a constructive part in this process or not. But let's just demolish this nonsense that somehow people who are in favour of the Private Finance Initiative do so because they don't understand the concerns of vulnerable people. The Private Finance Initiative in my constituency is helping vulnerable people get a better deal on healthcare. If you go to the former Dryburn Hospital, now North Durham Hospital, which I know very well from my youth, and you see the total transformation of that hospital and with facilities there as good as you could probably get in most parts of the private sector, or you look at the local community hospital that has been rebuilt actually in Sedgefield, both by Private Finance Initiative. Go and talk to the people there, who are vulnerable people getting decent healthcare, free at the point of use under the National Health Service, and tell them that actually it would have been better if that hospital had never been built, and that is the best answer for this type of stuff.

QUESTION:

You obviously feel there was progress in Gerry Adams' statement yesterday in answer to your three questions, but David Trimble has said last night, and again this morning, that he doesn't feel there is a basis for progress. Is there a parting of the way now between the government and David Trimble? And secondly, considering that the Assembly election broadcasts are starting today, is 29 May the definitive date for the election?

PRIME MINISTER:

On the election, I don't want to add to what I have said earlier, because I am still concentrating on trying to get the progress that we need. No, I think David Trimble is right in saying that we don't yet have the basis that we need. All I am saying is there has been some progress. Look, I posed three questions because these are three questions that go to the heart of whether we can make progress or not, because they are all about so-called acts of completion. The three questions were these. When the IRA say that they want to put weapons beyond use - in other words decommissioning the weapons - does that mean all the weapons? It is a pretty simple question and Gerry Adams has answered that affirmatively yesterday, so that is obviously progress. The second question was this. Provided we do what we are supposed to do, all the other parties to the Good Friday agreement, and we do what we say in the Joint Declaration, is that then the final and complete closure of the conflict so far as the IRA are concerned? In other words, is the end of the conflict the implementation of the Good Friday agreement, or is it only if there is a united Ireland? Now my interpretation at any rate of what Gerry Adams said yesterday, and I think this is what he said and what he meant, is again to answer that affirmatively, but it is important obviously we are clear about that, that it is the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement that means the end of the conflict, because that is vital. But the third issue, which has not yet been resolved satisfactorily, is absolutely crucial and it is fundamental and this is why David Trimble is right to say we need a clear answer on this, and that is in the meantime is there going to be an end to all paramilitary activity of the sort that gave rise to the very problems we have, to do with Castlerey and Colombia and the gun running and so on, the targeting. Is there going to be a complete and total end to all that paramilitary activity? Now that is what we need to know on behalf of the IRA, because if they are going to carry on with that type of activity then there is no basis for progress. So we just need to be sure, and I can't believe that we can't get a straight answer to those questions.

QUESTION:

Is it Gerry Adams who you want to hear it from, or is it from the IRA itself?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well in his statement Gerry Adams says that he has been in discussion with the IRA leadership, so what he has to do is to make it clear that from the discussion he has had that that is indeed what the IRA leadership mean. Now I think he can be perfectly clear about that, for all the reasons that we know.

QUESTION:

How bruised were you (about Iraq), in the sense did you really seriously consider resigning and under what circumstances?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think in the interview that Trevor did with me I think I answered these questions pretty comprehensively. And to be absolutely frank about it, taking these types of decisions, that is what we are paid for, that is what we are supposed to be able to do, and the people that I think have really, really put themselves on the line are the troops and the Armed Forces, and we should save our sympathy and our respect for them, to be honest. So it was one of these situations where like the country, there was going to be a division. But the thing that always strikes me as odd in these situations is that people always treat those who are dissenting from the majority as somehow having more legitimacy than those that happen to agree with the position that we have adopted. I think the majority, not an absolute majority but a majority, not everyone, agreed with that position and were happy with it.

QUESTION:

Going back to Iraq, given that ourselves and the Americans are holding ourselves up as paradigms of civilisation in that country, how comfortable are you personally with the sight of naked looters being led at gunpoint by American troops through the streets of Iraq?

PRIME MINISTER:

I have only seen the pictures, as you have seen the pictures, and I have no doubt that is something that people will discuss with the US. On the other hand I would simply say to you that I think so far as your average person in Iraq is concerned, they want to see the looting stop.

QUESTION:

Your officials say that President Bush has made very explicit promises to you about putting his back into the Middle East peace process, including pressuring the Israeli government, if necessary, to curb settlements. But Israeli officials have been quoted over the weekend as saying they know better, that in fact that is an assurance that was given to you but which President Bush doesn't mean. How confident are you in the degree to which President Bush is going to make the Middle East peace process a fundamental priority, and if he doesn't will you consider it a personal betrayal?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well first of all, it is not a question of President Bush having given me assurances at all. President Bush himself has committed, this is a question obviously you should ask him, but I think you will find that he is completely committed to taking the Middle East peace process forward. It is President Bush that on 24 June last year made the two state speech, the first American President to do it; it was President Bush who also said however that he needed interlocutors that he could work with, which is why he was so keen on getting a Palestinian Prime Minister in place that was someone that we could trust and work with, we have now got that; it was President Bush who said that he would publish the road map, and that will happen as the Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority endorse Mr Abu Mazen's Cabinet. And I wouldn't take what my officials say, what Israeli officials say, what anyone else says, I would take the words of President Bush because they are good enough for me and I think they are good enough for you.

QUESTION:

... promise not to have a top down Health Service, one that is more responsive, on something like the MMR. If it is clear that people would like to be able to have separate vaccines for their children on the NHS, is that the kind of NHS that should respond to that desire and actually do that?

PRIME MINISTER:

No, I don't think we should change our position on the MMR. You do understand why we are taking the view we are taking. I am not an expert on this, neither are you, neither are many of the people that talk about it, but those that are say that the triple jab is important, and the danger is, and this has happened in other countries where this change has been advocated and followed through, is that you don't then get the coverage that you need. And all I say to you is, I have read carefully the evidence from people who are experts, and there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere of any authority that makes the case for the link between MMR and autism in the way that has been described, and I think it would irresponsible for us to depart from that advice. In the end, and as I say I am not an expert on it, but we have people who advise us that are decent people, who are experts in their field, and I think better to make a decision based on their advice to us rather than on the politics.

QUESTION:

The Americans have repeatedly warned that Iran is intervening in Iraq. Do you share their concerns that Iran is actually trying to establish a kind of Islamic state in Iraq? And in case Iraqi people themselves want an Islamic state, would you accept that? Rumsfeld said the Americans would not accept such an eventuality in Iraq, what is your point of view?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think that the most important thing is that we proceed stage by stage in Iraq, and we need an interim authority that is representative of the Iraqi people and then there will be a new constitution drawn up. Though I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people, given the free chance, whatever their religious faith, want to live in a state that guarantees freedom and democracy. Anyway, let's wait and see how that develops. As for the situation vis Iran, look Iran has got a very close interest in what happens in Iraq. We are in dialogue with Iran. I hope in the near future we will have high level contacts with the Iranian government that will allow us to discuss some of these issues, but it is important that Iran realises that if it wants to be a partner in this process it has got to behave in an open and transparent way, and we recognise the concerns that Iran have and we will discuss those concerns with them, but it is important they do so, that Iran behaves in a responsible way towards Iraq and does not attempt to destabilise the situation at all. I am not accusing them of doing that, I am simply stating it is important it doesn't happen.

QUESTION:

Today is Saddam Hussein's birthday, you are close to being twins, assuming he is still alive, as most people do, and assuming he has a television set, what message would you send to him, what should he do and what will happen to him if he does it?

PRIME MINISTER:

You have been thinking about that for a long time, haven't you Mike, getting that question right. Well the answer is I don't know what has happened to Saddam Hussein, I am not sure that anyone does for sure, but I guess time will tell.

QUESTION:

What should he do?

PRIME MINISTER:

What should he do if he is alive, or what should he do if he is dead?

QUESTION:

That is a faith-based question, Prime Minister. No, what would you tell him to do now that you have thought about it, you have just said you have been thinking about it, what would you tell him to do?

PRIME MINISTER:

Let's wait and see what has actually happened to him before we get into that.

QUESTION:

May I remind you that in January we discussed who will be next after Iraq, and you said there is no conspiracy in the Middle East, but already the war of words has started on Syria and Iran. If there is any war in Syria, would Britain participate?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well again I have made it very clear that there are no plans to invade Syria or take military action against Syria. What we have wanted is Syrian cooperation, and we want Iranian cooperation too, and I believe that is true not just in relation to Iraq incidentally. The single most important thing is that if we can get this Middle East peace process moving forward again, Syria and Iran have got a part to play in that because they have sponsored terrorism that has sought to disrupt that process, and that sponsorship of terrorism has got to stop. And so if we can get this peace process moving then it is important for both those countries to help, and that is actually in their interests as well. But as I have said on many occasions, I don't think people should pay too much attention to some of the conspiracy theories about a series of invasions.

QUESTION:

Can you give me some detail about your discussions with the Prime Minister of Japan at the weekend, and I am especially interested in the UN resolution on the future of Iraq. Will it be difficult or impossible to get one comprehensive UN resolution on the future of Iraq, or is it a case of a step by step working process?

PRIME MINISTER:

I had a very good meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan and I would like to thank him publicly for his support over these last few weeks, I know it has been difficult in Japan, as elsewhere, for Prime Ministers that have taken that position, but I think he has behaved with a great deal of courage and leadership. We will work closely on the reconstruction of Iraq. We haven't yet decided whether we do one resolution or a series of resolutions, I think that is a matter that the diplomats are discussing now. The most important thing I think is that Japan does play a part in this reconstruction, both because of its expertise and also because it has been an important part of our discussion and debate over the past few weeks. And again I think that for Japan too there is a continuing discussion about issues to do for example with North Korea, which we spent a long period of time discussing on Saturday night, where the role of Japan is going to be immensely important.

QUESTION:

Do you think it is possible to keep the door open for entry into the euro within this parliament, assuming the result of the tests is not yes this time around, to do so without creating economic instability and uncertainty?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think if you will forgive me, I know there is masses of speculation about it, but I wouldn't speculate any further and I don't intend encouraging that myself, but you will see, all will be revealed when the tests are revealed.

QUESTION:

Was ridding Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction the primary reason for going to war?

PRIME MINISTER:

Yes, that was the justification that Iraq had to be disarmed and I always made it clear that the concept of regime change in a sense followed on from that. But it was a question of making sure that the resolutions of the UN were properly upheld.

QUESTION:

Why are you so confident that the number of asylum applications will fall in the way that you promised recently? And is there a danger that the government's perceived failure on this issue will be exploited by the BNP?

PRIME MINISTER:

There is no doubt at all this is a serious issue, it is a serious issue in the local elections and in the country as a whole, and the trouble is that there is a time lag between the latest statistics that people have, and the figures that people have, and the current reality. Because you will see from the last three months of last year that there was actually a 25% fall even within those three months, but the figures cumulatively for the last year still look very large. Now the figures for the first three months of this year will not be published until the end of May, but what I can say to you is that I have received, because I am having meetings on this the entire time, I receive a weekly update of what is happening, and there has been a very, very significant improvement as a result of the legislative and other measures we have taken in. And I think that people will see very clearly, even when the next month's figures are published, that we are well, well on target to meet the September target that we set. However, having said that, I still think it is necessary that we consider further action to reduce the numbers of applications by an even greater degree, so that is also something that we are looking at now. But I can assure you this is an issue we are tackling, but there have been huge improvements as a result of the steps that we took last year. And you will know that we had a very difficult time getting that legislation through the House of Commons, we got it through last November, and it is since last November that the rapid and significant improvement has taken place.

QUESTION:

You are 50 in 2 weeks time, what are the key political and personal objectives you have set for yourself over the next decade, and also what job would you like or expect to be doing when you are 60?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think you have read enough on that over the weekend and you can dissect that. I can't be bothered to go back through it all again.

QUESTION:

Can I come back to the question of Europe, more specifically France. You said in an interview published in a national newspaper today that you think the French attempt to create a rival pole to American power is destabilising, these are words that echo those of Foreign Secretary Straw over the weekend. Can you clarify this position, because you said yourself earlier today that it is important for Europe to become more important in the world, to make its voice heard more, is that not inherently competitive to America anyway, once you begin to build up

Europe and to make it more powerful and effective, that is automatically a sense of rivalry to America, so how do you reconcile or avoid a rift here?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well that is a good question. The central issue is this. As Europe develops, as it becomes more powerful, does it see itself as a partner or a rival? Now I think it is perfectly possible for Europe to become more powerful, but as an ally and partner of the United States of America. And if it were to develop in that way, you would never have seen the situation such as occurred over the past few months with Europe and America, at least part of Europe, and America divided in that way. And let me make it clear to you, France remains an important ally for the United Kingdom. There are many things that France and Britain have in common, and even if we didn't want to have them in common we would have them in common economically in terms of our geography, in terms of the fact that in Europe we are probably the two leading defence nations, in terms of our interest in Africa, in terms of our membership of all the major security and political institutions of the world. France and Britain should work together, but I think it is important that we come to a proper understanding within Europe of what our relationship with America is, and that is not something exclusive, incidentally, to debate between Britain and France, it is something that Germany and other countries need to engage in too, but I think it is a fundamental decision as to whether the world breaks into different centres of power that I think very quickly will become rival centres of power, or whether we see our task as trying to construct a genuine strategic partnership with America for the future which others can then join. And my fear is that if we don't deal with the world on the basis of a partnership between Europe and America, then we will in a sense put back into the world the divisions that we wanted to get rid of when the Cold War finished, and I think that would be just a disaster for the world. And the truth is, whatever the problems there have been in the past few months, and as I say there is no point in trying to hide them, and I don't try to hide them, the fact is in terms of our economy, in terms of the way our people live, in terms of our values, the values of Europe and America are the same.

QUESTION:

... another Cold War?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think that if you ended up with two rival centres of power you would find a very, very difficult situation. Look, you have had a very difficult situation in the last few months, that should give us some clue as to what will happen if this occurs. The world appeared, the industrialised modern developed world appeared to split into two parts, and I think that is dangerous, and that is why I think we need to go back into this in a considered way and have an honest discussion about it, not cover it up or pretend that we haven't had these big differences, or try and blot over them, but actually have the discussion, and that needn't be, and shouldn't be, acrimonious, or bitter, or personalised, or any of the rest of it, but it should be about what is an agenda that can form the partnership for the modern world. And what I say about that is that the items that go on that agenda are in a sense very, very clear, they are terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, the Americans are right about those issues and we should be backing them in fighting them, but they are also issues to do in the Middle East with the Middle East peace process, to do with the problems of the world environment, to do with global poverty, to do with the World Trade Organisation and free trade, which is a massive issue, it doesn't hit the headlines but I tell you that one of the biggest issues coming up in the next 6 months is what we do about world trade. Now are Europe and America going to fight each other, or are they going to come to a common position and drive that through? I think these are really big questions.

QUESTION:

... in what forum those kind of discussions could take place? Obviously a big global meeting is necessary to do that.

PRIME MINISTER:

They will take place in formal discussions in the G8, but I think it is more informally as well and we need just to debate that within Europe and across the Atlantic too.

QUESTION:

Would you consider your Premiership having been a failure if by the end of it you haven't taken Britain into the euro?

PRIME MINISTER:

Again, I have been asked that question so many times and you will just have to wait. I know what you want to ask but you have got to understand why I am not going to answer it right at this moment.

QUESTION:

Why don't you publish the joint document that you were working with the Irish government on, because the Republicans have asked for that to be published and that might ease the debate. And on the issue of elections, you have talked about the election going ahead, but we have this atmosphere in Northern Ireland where people are beginning to campaign for those elections and they still think at the back of their minds that you are prepared to cancel that election.

PRIME MINISTER:

I said that I would much prefer to go into it in a positive frame of mind, but the election date is set and at the moment I don't want to do anything that is going to disturb the focus on getting this thing sorted out. And I hope that we will carry on with the discussions that enable us to do so, because it is vitally important for people in Northern Ireland. And I know it is frustrating for people there at the moment, it is frustrating for us too, but we have to get to the bottom of what undertakings are really going to be made by the IRA in respect of the next period of time, because everybody else is clear. And as for publishing the joint declaration, let's just wait on that, we don't need to take that decision now, I certainly haven't excluded that at all, but we need to decide the context in which we do that because it has got to be something that helps us make progress, not hinders it.

 

QUESTION:

Iraq's leaders are having their second conference in Iraq to decide on the future of an Iraqi government. ....the Shia group, have boycotted this conference for the second time. Does the Prime Minister see the influence of Iran in this decision by Siri?

PRIME MINISTER:

We just don't know. There are more people participating in this discussion than participated in the last one, and these are very preliminary meetings, so there is a long way to go for us to establish the confidence in the local population that we mean what we say. This will not be a government in the end that is anybody's puppet, it will be a genuinely representative Iraqi government. I am sorry if people have decided not to participate in this meeting, but I hope they will participate in future meetings.

QUESTION:

Tomorrow you are going to Moscow, I am wondering if you can tell us what you hope to accomplish there, and will you particularly be discussing the UN sanctions restricting Iraq from selling its oil?

PRIME MINISTER:

We will obviously discuss the role of the UN in relation to Iraq and also how we make sure that we proceed in a better way within the United Nations over the coming months than we have up to now. And my contacts with both other Europeans and with President Putin lead me to believe that there is a better atmosphere developing and I hope we can resolve these issues and make sure that the UN is given its proper role at the same time as dealing with the reality on the ground of the coalition forces. And I have said before, and I say again, I think with goodwill this can be done and can be sorted and I look forward obviously to the discussion I will be having with President Putin on this issue tomorrow.

Registration

Registration

Register for e-mail updates

News by subject
-Government
-International

 

Extra info
- View a photo gallery of the event.
- Previous press conferences>>>

Useful websites          
- FCO

Other news:

Baghdad meeting on building Iraq's political future
(28/04/2003)

Straw urges patience on North Korea
(25/04/2003)

PM: 'The importance of the UN in post-conflict Iraq'
(23/04/2003)

UK-German relations 'extremely strong'
(14/04/2003)

ICRA UK Online