Iran Must Obey Rules on Nuclear Program

Reuters:

PM's monthly Downing Street press conference

Iran must obey international rules over its nuclear program and should not doubt the will of the international community to ensure it does so, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Tuesday.

Blair, due to hold talks on Iran soon with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said Britain and the United States would continue to put pressure on Iran over its nuclear activities, which Washington says -- and Iran denies -- are a cover for making atomic bombs.

"The position of Europe and America has been the same on this. We will continue the pressure," Blair told a news conference.

"They have to abide by the rules of the international community on their nuclear capability. They have to stop support for terrorism, whether it's in the Middle East or elsewhere."

"I think they would make a great mistake if they thought the international community lacked the will to make sure that is done," he added. READ MORE

Washington and the EU have prepared the way for the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to send Iran to the United Nations Security Council next month for possible sanctions for violating international obligations.

Blair said Britain was "concerned" about the situation in Iran and said a recent IAEA report on Iran's nuclear activities was "very significant".

Rice is expected to be in Paris on Friday and London at the weekend in a bid to hammer out a joint strategy for curbing Iran's suspected nuclear arms programs and persuading Tehran to resume negotiations.

Britain, France and Germany led negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program but talks collapsed in August. Iran insists its nuclear activities are solely for peaceful purposes.

"We'll pursue those discussions, but it has to be on the basis that people live up to their obligations under the IAEA rules," Blair said. "Nothing less than full obedience to the rules is acceptable."

British-Iranian relations were further strained recently when an unnamed senior British official said London believed Iran had given insurgents in Iraq armor-piercing explosives and infra-red devices used to kill British troops there.

Blair said evidence pointed to Iran or its Lebanese Hizbollah allies as the source of the explosives but said Britain did not have proof.

Tony Blair held his monthly press conference in Number 10.

Opening statement

Good morning everyone. It is good to see you all again after the Summer. I know some of you will want to ask me about the government's Terrorism Legislation, indeed other issues as well, and I will be happy to take questions in a moment.

Before that I would like to say something about the terrible earthquake which has caused such devastation in South Asia, and then a little, if I might, on education that this Summer represented a critical moment for our schools.

Over the weekend I spoke to President Musharraf to offer our condolences for the tragic loss of life in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and the North-West Frontier of Pakistan. The scale of this tragedy is becoming more apparent by the day. The latest official figures indicate between 18,000 to 30,000 deaths and over 44,000 injured with each figure expected to rise further. The United Nations are reporting that 4 million people have been affected by the earthquake, and 1-2 million of those severely.

I know that there will be many British families who will have lost friends and relatives and we all express our deep sadness and condolences at this loss. There will be others living with dreadful uncertainty. This was a devastating earthquake that struck a remote part of the region which has made the relief effort all the more difficult. Sadly there have also been casualties in India and Afghanistan, but it is Pakistan that has been hit hardest. I would like to pay tribute to the extraordinary job that the Government of Pakistan is doing in trying to improve access to the relief supplies so that they get through. The British Government has already committed over .2 million worth of assistance and that figure will increase over time. As I said to President Musharraf when I spoke to him, we stand ready to do whatever we can to help. Later this afternoon there will be a flight from the East Midlands Airport carrying some 800 tents, 19,000 blankets destined for the relief effort in Muzzafarabad supplementing the 1,000 tents and 10,000 tarpaulins we are sending from our existing relief supplies in Pakistan.

On Saturday we agreed a grant to the World Health Organisation to enable it to send emergency help and trauma kits to support 40,000 people for 3 months. Hilary Benn is urgently looking at what else can be done to give practical support. The government has also made clear that we will pay for the transport of the relief goods provided by British Charities so that all the money given by the British public will go directly to the relief effort, and as ever people are responding here magnificently.

I would also like to pay tribute to all the search and rescue teams who have worked so tirelessly and bravely in recent days. Britain has just under 100 people in the region but we have already seen how they have worked to save lives, and they have our admiration and thanks.

Now if I may shift to the domestic agenda. Essentially over the coming months the reform agenda will be dominated by the changes in the National Health Service, welfare reform, obviously the response to the pensions Commission, anti-social behaviour and respect, and of course education, and I want to focus on that, if I might, today.

Later this month we will publish the White Paper on Education. In August we had the best school results the country has ever seen at 11, at 16 and at 18. Almost 100,000 more pupils are going on to secondary school this year better able to read and write and to do basic maths, than was the case when we came to power, with the English success rate at Key Stage II up 14% since 1998 and Maths up 16%. The overall A to C pass rate for all GCSE candidates this Summer was 61.2%, a 2 point rise on last year. That is the biggest single increase since 1992.

Just to give you some sense of context in this, in 1997 there were over 600 schools with under 25% of the pupils getting 5 good GCSEs. We are now below 200. At the same time the number of all-ability secondary schools where 70% or more are getting 5 good GCSE's has risen 5-fold to over 400. Indeed there are round about 100 in London alone and that is up from somewhere in the region of 30 in 1997.

At A-level the pass at Grade A to C was 69.9%, and that is a rise of 14.2% since 1997, again a record high. Now, just so that we make this very clear, as the examining authorities themselves have stated again and again, this has not happened because the exams have been made easier, it has happened because of the hard work of students and teachers, supported by the sustained investment and reform in our school system over the last 8 years. It is no coincidence that results at every level have been better in specialist schools and academies where they have had more freedom to innovate and a greater involvement of external partners. They are also not just dry statistics. They represent a real and genuine change in the life chances of thousands of children, opening the door to more opportunities in higher and vocational education or the workplace.

We now have a choice. We can either soft-pedal these changes and hope to see some further improvement, but incrementally, or to seize this moment and drive through lasting radical reform that will cement the renewal of our State education system for this generation. The challenge is clear, but we know what works. We now need to deepen the change. That means giving more freedom to schools, more power to parents, more opportunities for children.

In the first term the focus was on standards in primary schools, in the second on diversity at secondary level and the reform of student finance. By the end of this third term I want every school that wants to be, to be able, to be an independent, non fee-paying state school with the freedom to innovate and develop in the way it wants and the way the parents at the school want, subject to certain common standards, and the White Paper will be the route map to make this happen.

The evidence of change and progress in our education system is overwhelming as OFSTED have frequently made clear. We need however to accelerate it and with the emergence of all the new competitive challenges that I have described Britain now needs more than ever before to focus on education and skills and their vital importance in making this country competitive for the future. So the Education White Paper that will be published in the next couple of weeks will obviously be a very, very important moment, not just in the life of the government, but more particularly in this Parliament, but it will be part, as I say, of the overall reform programme the government is taking forward.
Question and answer session

Question:

The Lord Chief Justice this morning has warned against Ministers browbeating the Judiciary. Isn't that precisely what you are doing and want to do? And if I may broaden out to the issue of terror laws, you are essentially saying to people with anxiety about the terror laws, trust me. Why should people trust a government that drew up terror laws that detain not only an 82-year old protestor at your Conference, but dozens of people outside that Conference who posed no threat at all?

Tony Blair:

Well, I am actually not saying that to people. I am not saying: Trust me, you have got to do whatever I say, here I have just suddenly woken up one morning and thought of these terror laws. Go and back them. That is not what is happening, let us just be very clear because I want to take this forward as far as possible by agreement with people. These anti-terrorist measures are necessary, not in the view of myself or people in government simply, but in the view of the Police who are charged with protecting our country against terrorist activity. This terrorist activity is of a wholly different order from anything we have faced before in this country. We saw in July that these people were prepared to kill over 50 innocent people, but if it could have been 500, and it might have been by what they did, then they would have rejoiced in that. We need to make sure therefore that we give ourselves every possible opportunity to prevent such terrorist acts occurring. The Police have set out why they need these powers. I think it would be irresponsible of me if I think that the fears of the Police are well grounded about the existing law and the problems with it, I think it would be irresponsible of me not to take this forward, and that is why I am doing it. I am not doing it because I am authoritarian or don't care about the civil liberties of this country. I care deeply about the civil liberties of this country, but I care about one basic civil liberty which is the right to life of our citizens and freedom from terrorism and I think if these measures are necessary we should take them.

Question:

Inaudible

Tony Blair:

Well I haven't actually seen these comments myself. Let me put this in the right way to people. I am not trying to browbeat the Judiciary or to substitute the role of government to the proper role of judges. I am simply sitting in the seat that is the decision-making seat for the laws to protect people in this country, and all I am saying to the judiciary is be aware that there is a proper role for the judiciary and there is a proper role for government and for Parliament, and the reason we are trying to put these laws forward and toughen up significantly our response to this terrorist threat is because that threat is real and we have seen how real it is in our country and therefore when you are sitting in my seat and trying to take the right decisions and the Police say look, this is what we need to make this country safe, you have got to have good reasons to say no to that. And I think the Police have set out a strong case, particularly on this three months and what I say to people is, go and look at what they say, take account of it, and then tell me why you think they are wrong. But if they are right, then how can I responsibly refuse to do something that will actually protect - as I say - the most basic civil liberty which is the right to life.

Question:

Prime Minister, aren't you really suffering from a fundamental misconception which is that the Police should be the servants of the people rather than its masters, and that it would be very convenient for the Police if they could bang everyone up for as long as they like without having to go to the Court. And when you talk about summary powers in your Party Conference speech for the Police, that is precisely really what you are advocating. You may respect the system of justice, but it is a bit like the Monarchy you want to put it on one side and not actually subject people to the test in the Courts. That is what one would conclude from what you said about 19th century values as far as the justice system is concerned. And can you point to one example related to July the 7th of how the new powers which the Police want, and which you want to give them, would have actually prevented July the 7th?

Tony Blair:

Well, first of all again if we are going to have a debate let us have it on a reasonable basis. I am not saying that whatever the Police say we have just got to do, that is not my case. My case is, if the Police put forward a new power that they say is necessary and they do it and they back it up as they have done in a paper that they have published saying, this is the practical situation we face, this is why this terrorism is different, this is why we need to be able to detain people for longer. And after all they are detaining them for up to 3 months with judicial oversight throughout. Every 7 days it has got to go back before a Court. Now of course we shouldn't do whatever the Police say we should do, but if the Police and particularly the Police charged for fighting terrorism in this country say to me as Prime Minister and to the members of Parliament, since we should all share responsibility for this, this is why we need it, and that case is a good and compelling case as I find it, then what is it my duty to do? My duty is to do it unless somebody can come forward with a very good reason why their case is unsound. So of course it is not a situation that you do whatever the Police want, and actually I don't agree with you in saying that the Police would bang up whoever they wanted to bang up.

I don't think the Police have that view. I think most people, if you have dealt with Andy Hayman who is the Head of Counter-Terrorism in this country, I think the modern Police Force is a very different type of service today. I think they are entirely respectful of the proper judicial process and the civil liberties of people in this country, but they are trying to fight a terrorist threat that is real. And they set out in their paper, and you can go and look at the examples that they give both from existing cases and the hypothetical cases that they put forward as to why 14 days is not enough, as to why they need to detain people for longer in order to complete the investigations and make sure that they protect people properly. Look, it is a debate we should have in the country about what is right and what is wrong, and as to the summary powers, I had a meeting first thing this morning with a whole lot of front-line police officers and others from local authorities about anti-social behaviour and particularly binge-drinking and so on, and they were saying that the summary power of fixed penalty notice, which people greeted with a certain amount of derision when we introduced it, has been absolutely essential as a tool for fighting crime. So it is all about in the end the balance between OK the civil liberties of the person who is accused, but also the civil liberties of other law-abiding citizens in the country who want protection, whether it is from terrorism or organised crime or just anti-social behaviour in the streets, and I am on their side. That is what I believe.

Question:

There was some coverage in the Sunday newspapers about so-called Baby ASBOs and so on. Can you just give us a really clear idea. First of all is that kind of thing taking things too far? Can you give us a really clear idea of what you perceive is the scale of the problem and what you would like to see done about it in terms of new measures in the next 6-8 months?

Tony Blair:

As far as I am aware there is no proposal for ASBOs for kids under 10, but I tell you what I do favour. I do favour making parents responsible for their kids and if their kids are out on the street causing a menace, even if they are under 10 years old, something should be done about it, and if necessary the parents should be subject to a fine, or if necessary a parenting order and make them attend some parenting classes so that they can become proper members of the community. Look, my point in this is very, very clear and again if you talk to front line police officers, and I did when I was down in Brighton, the anti-social behaviour measures have made a real difference, but we have now got to look and see how we take them further. How we deal, for example, with irresponsible licensees who will sell drink to kids underage, or who will sell drink to people when they are drunk and obviously not capable of behaving responsibly. We have got to make sure that the police have the powers they can to deal with people who are drug-dealing in the street where you may get decent law-abiding people who have got to put up with this hassle.

And I cannot emphasis strongly enough I am on their side. It is all very well for the rest of us who don't have to live with this menace and misery in local communities, and what the anti-social behaviour legislation has shown is that where these powers are used they do make a difference. But I want to see those powers extended, and I want us to give a clear signal - this is what I have said to the police, you tell me what you need in respect of anti-social behaviour and I will deliver it for you because it is time we made sure that decent, law-abiding people were in charge of their local communities, not hooligans, thugs, drug-dealers and others. And one other thing we are going to be doing in the next few weeks, is I will be meeting some of those engaged in the front line against organised crime. I don't think our laws there are nearly tough enough. I think we have got people who are engaged in organised crime who are able to just flout the law and do what they want. Well we should try and put a stop to it if we possibly can. I don't mean to sound as if I am careless about the civil liberties of people who are accused of these offences, but the fact of the matter is that if you are actually living, if you go and talk to people who live with this type of menace, it is incredibly distressing and it makes their lives hell and it is not right and we should stop it.

Question:

Can I ask, one of the things that is baffling people about 3 months detention without charge is that we haven't heard any concrete examples where having that on the statute book would have helped the police. The Opposition Parties have been asking the police for it, we have been asking them for it. It is not in that document that you describe. There are no concrete examples that have been given. Have you been presented with any? Do you know why they are not coming forward with those? You could obliterate the names, there is no need to upset the Courts with that. And just one other thing, does the Attorney-General think that 3 months detention without charge would be legal, would be watertight?

Tony Blair:

The issue there is not whether it is watertight or not, it is a question of whether people agree with it or not, and there is a debate going on in government as elsewhere. I am actually mystified by what you say about the police paper. They seem to me to provide examples throughout of where they say that this new power would be of assistance to them. I mean I have actually got the police paper here and this is some of what they say, and I think it is worth focussing on it for a moment. The first point they make which I think is absolutely right is they say, and forgive me for going into a little bit of detail on this: "The advent of terrorist attacks designed to cause mass casualties with no warning, sometimes involving the use of suicide and with the threat of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons means that we can no longer wait until the point of attack before intervening. The threat to the public is simply too great to run that risk." Now let me just explain what they mean by that. What they mean is, with a lot of crime, even serious crime, if the police have people under surveillance they will often wait until they have embroiled themselves further in their conspiracy until the police can collect even more evidence in respect of their activities and that is perfectly acceptable to do and it is common police practice.

The problem, and I have seen this because often with some of these operations I am kept personally in touch with what is happening during the course of them, what happens is because these people, these terrorists and this is a new type of terrorism, I think we would all accept that, because these people literally will kill hundreds of people if they possibly can, then they often feel they have got to intervene at an earlier stage. They cannot afford to let them mount up the conspiracy and they cannot wait for the moment that otherwise with a different kind of offence they might, so they lift them early. For that reason it is only after they actually lift them that they are able to complete a lot of the investigations that they are carrying out, and that is why what they say when they go through the various reasons why they need this time they say, for example, that the forensic requirements in modern terrorist cases are far more complex and time consuming than in the past, particularly where there is the possibility of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear hazards.

Following the discovery of the bomb factory in Yorkshire after the 7th of July attacks in London, it was over 2 weeks before safe access could be gained for the examination to begin, it took a further 6 weeks to complete the examination and the Al-Qaeda methodology of mounting simultaneous attacks inevitably extends the time it takes for proper scene examination and analysis. And it then goes through to give case studies from Operation Springboard, with the so-called Ricin plot, then another case whose details they give from an operation in 2004, another one in 2004, a further one in 2005 and then a theoretical case study.

So when people say they are not providing any evidence as to why this is necessary, they have. That is what they are saying. Look, when people then say: prove that if you have this power there will be no terrorist attack, you can never prove for certain what may or may not happen. What you can do is make an assessment of whether what the police are saying why they need these powers is reasonable or unreasonable and all I am saying is, I find that reasonable. What they are saying is this is a different type of terrorism. The investigation is far more complex, they often have to arrest people at an earlier stage, it often is networks abroad, or computer checks that need to be made, or different parts of the conspiracy that have to be chased down, and what they are saying is if you want us to protect people better, we need more than 14 days, we need the 3 months but we accept that we will have to go back in front of the Court every 7 days and justify it. Now all I am saying to people is this is not a great Party political issue, it may become like that, I hope it doesn't. But it is an issue where I am trying to do my best to protect the country and I am trying not simply blindly to follow whatever the police say, but to assess what they say. Is it reasonable or unreasonable? It looks to me as if it is reasonable. And I think for most people in the country out there they would say well if that is what the police want and they can provide a decent case for it, are we really very sensible as a country for saying no to them? That is what it is about.

Question:

Prime Minister, this feels like a bit of a watershed moment, to borrow a phrase of yours, the rules of the game have changed. In your Party Conference speech you said that in the past the responsibility, or the prime responsibility, of the legal system had been to ensure that innocent people didn't get punished. From everything you have said this morning, from what you said at your party conference, it now feels as if you believe the primary responsibility is not that any more and it is much to do with police having the powers that they need. Do you accept that we are passing through a kind of watershed moment in the way that we view the criminal justice system?

Tony Blair:

I think I do accept that actually, but I don't maybe put it as starkly as you have put it. Because it of course must be the duty of any criminal justice system to protect the innocent, but I want to just tell you this absolutely frankly, based on the experience I have got as Prime Minister. If people want us to tackle the new types of crime today, international terrorism, this very brutal violent organised crime, antisocial behaviour, which I think is in every respect these types of crimes are qualitatively different from certainly when I was growing up, you can't do it by the rules of the game we have at the moment, you just can't. People can write articles about yes but you go through this process or that process, you can't do it, it is too complicated, too laborious, the police end up being completely hide-bound by a whole series of restrictions and difficulties, it doesn't work. Now if people want me to deal with this, I can deal with it, but my honest view is that the only way you deal with it is by saying you have got to put the duty to protect the law abiding citizen at the centre of this system, and that comes first. Now that is my view as to how you deal with it, and I think when we move on to organised crime people will find some of the measures there rather difficult.

But let's be clear about this, because I have been campaigning on this antisocial behaviour thing for several years, it was only when we introduced the legislation we got any real effect in local communities. Why? Because if you are a police officer and you are patrolling the street, and someone, say they throw a brick through someone's window, or they abuse an old lady on the way down to the shops, if you have got to take that person all the way through a long court process, you are not going to do it. By the time you have filled out the forms, done the statements, got them to court, three hearings, they have got defence lawyers and all the rest of it, forget it. Now you may say well yes but you should do that if you are going to charge someone with an offence. OK, and all I am saying is that if that is what you do, you don't get the job done. Now the reason I introduced the fixed penalty notice was to say right we have had enough of that, you give them a fixed penalty notice and they have got to come to court to challenge it, or if you have got a drug dealer on the street you go and evict them, and then they come back and say well actually I should be there. Now that is summary justice, it is tough and it is hard, but in my judgment it is the only way to deal with it.

You take these cases the police have got, 2 - 3 years getting organised crime cases together, Heaven knows the millions of pounds they spend trying to put it together, you then have these trials going on forever, half of them get off at the end of it. I think it is just ridiculous, and therefore they think they can do it with impunity, which is what they do. Now if you want to change that, you can change it, but you can't change it by pretending that the same system can be applied and with a little bit better, because it doesn't work.

Question:

My question, you have met Prince ... Faisal yesterday, what were the issues you discussed with him, and how are the relations between the two Kingdoms after King Abdullah came in his position?

Tony Blair:

Well it was really just to wish him well in his new position in Washington. And I think the relationship is very good, in particular we are co-operating strongly now on the fight against terrorism, and we also support very closely the change and reform process in Saudi Arabia too, so the relations are good between the two Kingdoms.

Question:

Prime Minister, just taking you up on your education thing at the beginning, you said that you want to make Britain the science capital of the world, but the Telegraph is reporting today that the professor who cloned the first human embryo in the west, who works at Newcastle University, he says he is leaving because of red tape and a lack of funds are driving him out of Britain, and he says there is too much talk, too little action. How do you respond to that criticism that you don't follow through what you say with actual positive policies?

Tony Blair:

Well I don't know enough about the individual case, but we have actually, if you look at the biotech industry here for example, we are doing as well as anywhere, certainly in Europe. The science budget is being increased substantially, and actually there are scientists who come into this country, as well as scientists who leave, and if you look at the overall position of science, I think the report of the government's chief scientist has indicated it is in a good and healthy state. Now I am sure you will always get someone, it is part of the nature of things, who disagrees with that, but if you look at the state of science overall in the UK, and the spin-offs particularly we are getting between science and business, I think it is quite a strong situation. But obviously I will look carefully into what he has said about the particular situation.

Question:

Just going back to the anti-terror laws, is there a sense in which Charles Clarke and yourself are playing soft cop, hard cop? This morning he has been dropping hints that there is room for compromise, he is reaching out to the opposition parties, you have made a very strong case for the police's view, but when it comes to the crunch, which is more important - having cross-party consensus on this, or doing what the police want to do? And also you said people should come up with alternatives to the 90 days, and one is under the new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism you could charge people, keep them in custody and then wait for the new evidence to be sorted through, or another possibility is to look at a new offence of withholding computer codes. The opposition parties are saying there are ways around these things.

Tony Blair:

Yes, but to just deal with that last point, that is what I find a bit sort of odd. You know, find a lesser charge and try and charge them with that, to get to the same state. There is no point in doing this artificially or trying to trump up some different charge from the charge that you want.

Question:

Inaudible.

Tony Blair:

Yes, but I mean what are we trying to do here? Surely the civil liberties issue, is it right to hold somebody that long without charge. You know the seriousness of the terrorist offence that you will charge them with may provide a justification for that, but to try and trump up some lesser charge and then get to the same effect by doing that just seems to me somewhat artificial, and I think if I may say so what it indicates is that they see the basic force of the police case but just don't want to follow through the consequences of it. Anyway we can debate that issue. My duty in the end is to do the best thing for the country, that is my duty, that is what people expect because in the end if something dreadful happens the first questions are asked to me, quite properly. On the other hand, I said at the beginning, and I still say, it is best to do this as much as possible by consensus. My only worry is that what sometimes happens in situations like this is that some terrible event happens, people react very strongly and then as time passes the memory dims a bit about what has happened. Let us just be quite clear. Less than 100 days ago there was a terrible terrorist attack here in the centre of London, 50 people or more were killed, the intention was to kill many more than that. If the police put forward a reasonable case for this power, then we should listen very, very carefully to it. And in the end what I will do is make up my mind on the basis of the evidence that they provide, but I am saying I think it is a compelling case and I think that it is important that we do our level best to protect people in this country from the possibility of another terrorist attack. And as I say, when the police set out this case, I think we should listen to it, and Charles and I are on exactly the same line on that.

Question:

Two questions. Firstly, is the 90 days detention set in stone or is there room for debate on that? Secondly, on education, what about the thousands of children leaving our primary schools who still can't read, write or count properly?

Tony Blair:

Well first of all just on that latter point, when people say, I mean we put out the figures on primary schools in exactly the same way they are always put out, that is how they have been done over the years, but if you want the figure, which I think is 57% of the kids who pass all of the different aspects of the English exam, yes we want to get it far higher than 57%. 57% is the highest it has ever been, and it is up from 43% when we came to power. So when people sometimes say well there are still far too many kids leaving primary school not able to read and write properly, I agree, but it is a darned sight fewer than it was 8 years ago, just to put it in context.

The whole thing about the 90 days is that that already represents if you like a compromise. In the end there is not an exact science, but I think, and I would emphasise this, that with the judicial oversight of every 7 days the person has got to be brought back to court, I think that is a sufficient protection for people.

Question:

Your Work and Pensions Secretary yesterday described Britain's welfare system as crackers. Do you (a) agree with this, and given the scale of the task that faces you in terms of reforming the welfare state, is David Blunkett the right man to do this given the ongoing controversy over his private life?

Tony Blair:

I don't think it makes any difference to the reform of the welfare system. The reforms that we have already introduced of course have got very large numbers of people off benefit and into work, we spend far less on unemployment benefit than we did in 1997. What he is referring to though is that we have still got large numbers of people who are economically inactive, who are on benefit, who could and should work and we have got to give them the incentive to do that. But you know we shouldn't minimise either the reforms that have been made to shift people off benefit and into work, as you know there have been significant numbers who have come off benefit.

And also just again to set in context, the CAP report on fraud and error, we actually keep records of the error, the money that is missed in error, and actually the fraud on income support and JSA I think is down, the levels of it, down something like 30% from 1997, so there are already changes happening, but David is absolutely right, we have still got a significant way to go. And one of the important things is to set this within the overall context of what we are trying to do in welfare, we need to get the work rate up. We have got one of the highest in Europe, but it is not as high as it should be, because unless we get the levels of people who are of working age and able to work, the levels of people up and in work, if they are able to work, the costs to the welfare state for the future become a real problem for this country and for any other country. And you will have seen, I can't remember whether it was the OECD, or someone today issuing a report saying this is now a real problem for all developed nations.

Question:

On antisocial behaviour, the words you say sound very noble, but can you give us just one practical example where you want the police to have summary powers where they don't have them now? They can already fine you for being drunk, for throwing a brick through a window, what is the next practical step?

Tony Blair:

Well for example some of the things that we are looking at in relation to the closures of premises where there has regularly been problems outside those premises, the police powers that we are introducing, we are looking at whether those can be tightened up still further. I think there is a strong case for making sure that in respect of the homes, if someone is living somewhere and using it for the purposes of any form of drug dealing at all, not merely hard drug dealing, there is a real issue there as to whether we need to increase police powers. There is the extension of the fixed penalty notices across a range of different issues, some of which I was discussing at the meeting this morning, but it is our intention to publish a list of the further steps of this in the time to come. And I do simply urge people as well, but you can find a situation where people are still living in misery in their local communities, you can find the opposite now and there are communities that have taken back control over their local communities. I have visited estates in different parts of the country, for example in Middlesborough not so long ago, where you can see literally one part of that city virtually transformed by a combination of an active community, the police willing to intervene, use the new antisocial behaviour powers to really make a difference.

Question:

Just on the respect agenda, why don't you remove housing benefit payments to what we call nuisance neighbours who make lives hell for their next door neighbours? I would have thought that was a fairly straightforward issue. And on another issue, it is about a year now since you had major heart surgery, would you say you were feeling fitter and better placed, better able to handle the huge pressures you are under now than you have been for some years?

Tony Blair:

Yes, yes I would George. Thank you. I was wondering what you were going to say there, but you are looking a bit peaky now, would you like a quick check-up?

Question:

Inaudible.

Tony Blair:

I don't think we will go there thank you. In relation to housing benefit, let's wait and see, we will publish a whole series of fresh measures in the next few months but there is nothing that is ruled out of that mix at all. The only thing that you have got to watch with the housing benefit is that you don't end up having to give support because of children for example in a different way, so you end up not actually getting the benefit of it. But the one thing that is for sure is that where these antisocial behaviour powers, even the existing ones, are being used they are making a difference. And as I saw for myself when I was talking to the police officers this morning, there is no doubt that that enables them to do things. But one other thing incidentally, there are real worries at the moment about some of the procedures for getting ASBOs and whether they are quick enough, so that is something else that we are looking at, but we can give you the details of that when we are ready to.

Question:

Prime Minister, you said in your introductory remarks that your educational reforms were giving real and genuine opportunities, life chance opportunities to poorer students. Excellent, but there is evidence, I am sure you will agree, that perhaps the social mobility gap is still widening in this country despite all you try to do to close it. And with that in mind, you also went on to say that any secondary school that wants to be can be an independent, free-standing, non-fee paying school. Isn't the danger in that that good schools in the green suburbs will grab that opportunity you are offering them and become even better, thereby widening the gap? There was a report yesterday which said that social selection, which is far more pernicious than the 11-plus, is on the rise, and you are actually creating a situation where you are going to weaken the life chances for poor kids, and to underline the point, the Audit Commission says that a parallel programme of marketisation in the NHS, separate from schools but the same idea, is creating all sorts of difficulties again for poorer schools. So poorer schools, poorer hospitals, are they actually being weakened by what you are doing despite your no doubt gallant intentions?

Tony Blair:

Right, well first of all we should just clear what the Audit Commission actually say, because some of the reports have been a trifle one-sided, if I may respectfully suggest this morning. What it actually says is that the overwhelming view of those organisations that have already implemented the new payment system is that it is a positive change that should bring about genuine and long lasting improvement to the NHS. And what James Strachan said in his press release was that payment by results was fundamental to the modernisation of the NHS, providing a potentially powerful set of incentives in underpinning patient choice, but it is exposing weaknesses in financial and performance management and information systems, all of which need to be addressed if the benefits are to be realised. He then went on to say: we do not think that the implementation of payment by results needs to be slowed down in the light of the experience of the first year, but we do think there should be some adjustment to mitigate the risks. In other words he is not saying the programme is wrong, he is saying it is right, but we need to make adjustments as we go along, and that is perfectly sensible.

And actually the real test of this is going to be will waiting lists carry on falling, and waiting times carry on falling, and I think that they will. Now as for the school situation, I thought the Sutton Trust report - was that the Sutton Trust report you were meaning? - you see I think that is interesting because I think what they are saying is look, part of the problem is that when people say to me well you are introducing something new when you are introducing choice, what they are really saying is look, forget that, you have had choice for years for middle class parents, because if necessary they have the financial wherewithal to move house in order to be next to the good school. What we are trying to do, and the City Academy programme particularly does this, is with some of the most difficult schools in the poorest parts of the country, allow them to get some of the same benefits that the other schools do, and actually the City Academy programme is showing, demonstrating that for some of the poorest kids in the country you can get these benefits. I saw one myself down at the Haberdasher's Aske's, the City Academy School, where they are not ending up with a different intake, they have got the same intake but they are just dramatically improving the results. And the whole purpose of our reform programme is to give the kids in the poorer more disadvantaged areas the chance of a really good school, and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating with the schools programme, that is what I always say. There is a very simple test for any school - are parents trying to get into it or get out of it? And if they are trying to get into it, it is probably because it is a good school. They are the best judges of it.

Question:

... said that poorer children are applying in fewer numbers to university. Am I right in saying that - the proof of the pudding is where they get to in the end.

Tony Blair:

Let me provide you with the figures on that, but I actually think what the figure has shown is that there has been a rise in the number, I think there was a small percentage proportion fall, but actually there has been a rise in the number of kids from poorer backgrounds. But however, I don't doubt there is a real problem still with disadvantage and social mobility, there is, but what is the answer? The answer is to improve the state of education for kids in poor areas, and the truth is that if you are a low income family you don't have the same chances as a middle class family, a middle class family can either afford to send their kids to private school, or alternatively, as I say, they can move house and get close to the good school, or they can move to a better area of town. But if you look at what is happening in London and the inner cities, where you have got good imaginative local authority leadership and change going on in the schools, they are actually creating decent state schools for poorer children. When we came to power there were boroughs in London where on average there were I think fewer than 25% of kids getting 5 good GCSEs, there is now no London borough, I think I am right in saying, with under 40%. Now that is not high enough, but it is again a lot higher than it was, and I think there are real improvements going on in the state education system now for the poorest children, but we need to redouble our efforts on that. Because that is the way, you know you can provide whatever incentives you like for people to stay on at school, but in the end the real thing that determines whether they stay on at school or not is the quality of the education they get.

Question:

A question on Europe, the informal summit is approaching and from what we gather, the question is has it been dumbed down in a way because it was supposed to be for two days, it is going to be for one day, and the discussion about the social model will be much more looser and apparently also there won't be a communiqu.. Can you give us a flavour of what is going on, have you lost your ambition on that?

Tony Blair:

Absolutely not. No, the only reason for the timing is that instead of an evening and a morning, you are doing a whole day, so I think in time it is just about the same. No, the social model is absolutely, we have got to set out the competitive challenge for Europe in the future and get agreement on that, so there is no change in our ambition for that at all.

Question:

Inaudible.

Tony Blair:

There will be some discussion of other subjects, but the principal thing will be around the whole issue of the competitive challenge facing Europe economically and how we gear up to the future. Obviously there will be other issues that people will be able to raise, but no the focus of it has got to remain where it is. And I think the thing I would say as well that in this final three months of the UK Presidency, particularly now that it is clear what will be happening in Germany, you know there is a chance for us to take this agenda forward quite thoroughly and quite quickly.

Question:

Prime Minister, later today you are meeting Bertie Ahern, it is your first meeting since the IRA's act of decommissioning. How do the two of you now take this process forward following those events, specifically how do the two governments persuade Unionists that weapons have been put beyond use permanently, that the criminality has come to an end permanently, that it is not going to come back, that it is not still there, specifically when you have the Assets Recovery Agency uncovering what is apparently the multi-million pound fruits of a huge empire, allegedly run by IRA Godfathers?

Tony Blair:

The only way this will ever work is if people think there is a genuine and complete change in Northern Ireland. Now I think we have come a long way and I think the decisions by the IRA have been extremely important, but Unionists will want to see them carried through obviously, and you have got the Independent Monitoring Commission reports coming out. But they will also want to know, and this I think is on all sides in Northern Ireland, people will want to know that there is not just the implementation of the requirements of the Good Friday agreement, but people will want to have the confidence that that goes all the way through the culture of political parties, if I can put it like that.

Question:

And how do you engender that sort of confidence?

Tony Blair:

Well I think that this is where it is important for Unionists and Republicans and Nationalists to try and build confidence between each other. And you know in the end they are going to have to take the government forward, what we can do is provide the framework for that, and I hope that as a result of the changes that have happened that there is a greater sense of confidence in this process but it has got to be worked on, and it is not going to happen very easily. And you know it is a question that is not just about the specifics of decommissioning and so on, it is also about things like policing. As you probably know, I met the McCartney sisters yesterday and the only way this is ever going to work is if everybody understands that all forms of criminal activity, from whatever quarter they come, are unacceptable. Now I have got no doubt at all the Republican leadership want to make this process work and are committed to it, it has got to go all the way through the organisation.

Question:

Prime Minister, could you tell us why yesterday at the last moment you cancelled your appointment or your meeting at No 10 with Mr Sarkovsky, was it due to some wishes coming from the Elysee Palace for example?

Tony Blair:

I was actually out at the London Weekend TV studio.

Question:

Inaudible.

Tony Blair:

Well there was no particular reason other than that was where we decided to meet, and there it is.

Question:

You said last month that you wanted to keep open the option of building a new generation of nuclear power stations. Given how controversial that decision could be, why is it so important to keep the door open, is it security supply, climate change? And also, without pre-empting the final decision, the nuclear industry say that if you decide yes, they will build the stations, but what they need from you is not so much a subsidy, but certainty, the absolute guarantee that the government will stay behind that decision 100%. So if the decision is made to construct next generation, will that be an irrevocable decision?

Tony Blair:

Well we have to take the decision first of all as a matter of government policy, but the reason why it has got to go on the agenda, and I am not expressing a concluded view, this is something that it is right now to debate, is for the reasons you give - security of supply and global warming. That is why it has got to go on the agenda, and there will then be a debate about that, but it should be conducted with an open mind I hope by everybody, because as I have said to people over these past few months, the issue of energy policy is in my view going to start to come centre stage, not just in our own politics but in the politics of other similar countries, and that is for a very simple reason, you have the evidence of global warming that is there, and that is very strong now, I think too strong for anybody responsibly to ignore; and secondly, for a country like Britain, our present nuclear power, that is going to be phased out and over the next 10 - 15 years we have a very ambitious renewables target, very ambitious. And you know there are obviously issues there that we have got to address and get right, so that is what I am trying to do. I am not pre-empting the debate at all, but I do think it is responsible to start this debate and to have it in a very open way, and again we will take what decisions we think are right for the country. And I think you are right in saying that what the industry wants in the end is a decision and a framework, they don't want anything else from government, but we have got to take that decision and we will over the coming months.

Question:

I just wanted to ask you for an update on the situation with Iran. Since we last met, the EU3 talks with Tehran stalemated, and I am just wondering how you think the discussions are going to go forward from here, what prospects there are for a peaceful resolution to the nuclear issue, and how the election of President Ahmadinijad, if it has changed the tenor and substance of your relations and discussions with Iran?

Tony Blair:

Well we will pursue those discussions, but it has got to be on the basis that people live up to their obligations under the Atomic Energy Authority rules, and that applies to Iran as it applies to other countries. And we are concerned about the situation, but the position of Europe and America has been the same on this, we will continue the pressure. The report of the AEA recently was I think very significant and we will follow it up, but it is important we do so because there are real issues there that have got to be decided. And there is a very clear sense on the part of the international community that Iran should not develop nuclear weapons capability and we have got to make sure that that happens. So we will continue the process, and it is not a question of putting pressure, it is a question of making them understand that nothing else but an obedience for the rules laid down by the international body is acceptable.

Question:

Could you clarify the apparent ambiguity on the glorification of terrorism? At the beginning of August you said it would include the glorification of terrorism abroad, and you also say that you would stand up to the judiciary. It now appears that glorifying terrorism abroad may not be included. A number of groups were in fact to be proscribed, but not Hizbut Tahir. What is happening with them, and are any of the subjectivities definitely going to be covered and there will be no watering down. And can I just follow on the question on Iran, if I may. You have had a number of attacks on British troops by groups allied with Iran, some say even Iranian troops. It is clear that Iran is still fomenting problems in the Middle East and making Mahmoud Abbas's attempt to bring peace in the area to failure, what is the EU and the G8, which you head at the moment, going to be able to do to make sure Iran tows the line?

Tony Blair:

I think Iran should understand that people are happy to have better relations with Iran, but it has got to be on a clear understanding. They have to abide by the rules internationally on nuclear capability, they have to stop support for terrorism, whether it is in the Middle East or elsewhere, and I think they would make a great mistake if they thought that the international community lacked the will to ensure that that is done. In respect of the points you make on the terrorism legislation, the proscribed groups, there is going to be change to the law that will allow us to draw in more groups. The groups that were announced as proscribed are those that fit under the existing law, but the point I was making was that some don't fit under the existing law and that is why the law is being changed. The groups that you mentioned can then be considered under the new rules. And in respect of glorifying, this hasn't changed, what we have been able to do is to take in more statements than otherwise would be able to be prosecuted under the direct incitement provisions. In other words there are statements that at the moment it is questionable, which we want to prosecute, but it is questionable whether under the present law we can, that is the purpose of the glorification change. And again I was somewhat mystified to see that people thought we had watered this down in some way, we haven't, it remains as it is and we will be as a result of it, I think we will be able to give examples of this as the legislation goes through to prosecute a wide range of statements that are likely to encourage people to engage in terrorism.

Question:

Prime Minister, going back to Europe, accepting that you want to focus the December summit on the budget, but given that you have recently had conversations with President Chirac and Nicolas Sarkovsky, can you tell us what progress you are making on budget negotiations and if Britain is prepared to compromise on the size of the budget? And also if you fail on the budget to get an agreement, and if there is no progress on the social model, would Britain's Presidency be deemed a failure in your eyes and in the eyes of Europe?

Tony Blair:

Well you can only try to do what is right, and it is up to people whether you get agreement or not, and we will try to resolve the financing deadlock, but it has got to be done on a fair and sensible basis for the future of Europe, and it is probably really not sensible for me to say more about it at this stage. Now I don't know whether we will be able to reach agreement or not, but we will give it a go.

Question:

In the light of the comments made by the Chief Constable of North Wales Police at the weekend, is it a good use of police time and resources to investigate your alleged comments about the Welsh?

Tony Blair:

No.

Question:

You have raised concerns about Iran's nuclear intention of the Islamic Republic ruling Iran, but in the past year the Tehran regime has been able to buy military equipment from the British government. Now that you have also raised concerns about its support for terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere, will there be a review of the sale of military equipment to the regime in Tehran?

Tony Blair:

I think actually, to be absolutely frank, I have said all I want to say on Iran this morning. So I am sorry about that, but I don't think I can usefully add to what I said earlier.

Question:

Remaining in the Middle East if I may, Prime Minister, what do you expect Judge ... would say in his report on the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri? And do you agree with what Edward Walker, the former US Assistant Secretary of State, suggested in an article published by the International Herald Tribune newspaper last Wednesday that if President Bush has agreed to cut a deal with Syria, that would short circuit ... by granting top officials in Syria immunity in exchange for significant support with Iraq, Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and elsewhere?

Tony Blair:

Well I don't know anything about the so-called deal. I think we have just got to wait for the report, but obviously if it implicates people in positions of authority in Syria, that is very serious for Syria and I would expect them to take the appropriate action. But it is probably not wise to comment on the report until it comes out.

I have highlighted the relevant portions of this press conference.