Category: Speeches

Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, at the Maths 2000 Conference held on 16 March 1999.

This conference is to announce that next year will be Maths Year 2000 – following this year’s National Year of Reading.

But let me start with the bigger picture.

Education is this government’s top priority. That is why we are investing an extra £19 billion in education over the next three years, an unprecedented commitment to our children’s future.

It is investment for modernisation and higher standards at every level. Because without change, we will never achieve our goals.

Our programme of modernisation extends right across the education system:

• A huge expansion of nursery and under-fives provision, to give our children the best possible start in life.
• A transformation in the teaching of the basics in primary schools, so that all 11-year-olds are up to standard in literacy and numeracy.
• A modernisation of the comprehensive system – including a significant increase in the number of specialist and beacon schools – so that secondary schools develop the skills of young people of all abilities.
• A reform of the teaching profession, to reward performance properly and to improve the status, training and reputation of a profession which has been undervalued for too long.
• A reform of further and higher education, raising standards, extending opportunities, and modernising the system of student finance to make it sustainable for the next generation.

This is the big picture – a government committed to the serious investment and reform needed to create a world-class education system for this country. At every level it requires step-change – step-change in aspirations, step-change in attainment, and step-change in confidence that we can meet our goals if we resolve to do so.

Maths Year 2000 is part of that big picture, and a key part. As a country, we have devalued mathematics for too long.

It is frankly scandalous that four in ten of our eleven-year-olds are not up to the basic numeracy standard expected of their age. And we need to do far more to ensure that adults who lack basic numeracy skills have the opportunity to acquire them.
This means destroying the myth that’s it’s clever to be hopeless at maths.

The urgent priority is to improve the teaching of maths in our schools, particularly primary schools, which lay the foundations for success or failure. The national numeracy strategy, to be launched this September, is designed to achieve this.

But we must also forge a new status for maths within society as a whole – to make numeracy more accessible, even fun. That’s what Maths Year 2000 is all about.

We want to see projects to popularise maths in every community nationwide – involving schools, colleges, businesses, shops, the media, and voluntary organisations.

One of the successes of the Year of Reading has been Mersey TV’s Brookside adult literacy initiative – “Brookie Basics”. I look forward to something similar for numeracy – if not on Brookside, then perhaps a venue equally popular.

I am therefore delighted that Carol Vorderman spoke to you earlier. I’m told that her theme was ‘Why is maths so scary?’ – We need to eliminate the fear and replace it with confidence in dealing with numbers in every age group nationwide.

It is especially important that we instil that confidence in children during their first years at school.

A child who cannot read cannot learn. And a child who lacks confidence in arithmetic and basic maths is equally disadvantaged in modern life.

Yet we inherited a situation where a third of our eleven-year-olds were not up to standard in English, with an even higher proportion not up to standard in maths.

There is no more important task for us all – government, teachers, parents, business and the wider community – than putting this right.

That’s why we launched the national literacy strategy last September, with the literacy hour and high quality training and support. This has been widely welcomed by teachers, and is already making an impact.

Now we are doing the same with numeracy. Many primary schools already have a daily maths lesson, with structured learning programmes to support it. We are taking a big step forward, and this week will be sending comprehensive training and support materials to all schools for the new national numeracy strategy, which will lead to the numeracy hour in primary schools from this September.

The numeracy strategy has been extensively piloted already, and has received an extremely positive response.

Far from being regarded as an imposition, it is seen for what it is – first class support for teachers in planning and delivering maths classes, on a daily basis, to meet the expectations of parents that all children should be up to standard by the time they leave primary school.

The training materials are only the first step. With the extra investment for education more than 300 numeracy consultants have been appointed to train and support teachers. Primary head teachers and other teachers will receive training in the next school term, and there will be additional training for schools that need it.

We are also continuing to expand our numeracy summer school programme, which has been highly successful in raising standards. There will be more than 300 numeracy summer schools during this year’s summer holidays.

This is an important day for head teachers, teachers, and all those involved in maths education. Maths Year 2000, and the national numeracy strategy, give us the chance to make a step-change in maths competence across society, starting in our schools.

Our numeracy target is for 75% of all 11-year-olds to be up to standard by 2002. We are now at 59%.

We need to commit ourselves – together – to doing everything necessary to meet the 75% target. I am convinced we can do it. The numeracy strategy is in place. We have allocated the necessary resources to back it up. The will is there. Now we need to deliver.

There is no more important challenge facing us as a country. I wish you well in everything you are doing to make a success of Maths Year 2000 and our numeracy strategy.

Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 8 March 1999.

A 50th anniversary is a time to celebrate the achievements of the past and to plan ahead for the future. This conference, which I am delighted to have a chance to address, is an opportunity for open debate among friends and partners on the way ahead for the NATO Alliance, a debate which I warmly welcome. The 50th Anniversary Summit next month in Washington will be the time for decisions as well as celebration. It will shape the way we provide for our defence and security for the early part of the 21st century.

The Alliance is fortunate to have at its helm a Secretary General of the quality and fine touch of Javier Solana. I am delighted that he will be speaking here tomorrow, and would like to thank him for all the work he has done. I am glad that Jose Cutileiro, who has steered the work of the Western European Union so ably, is also attending.
The range of representation here today, including from countries beyond NATO’s borders – Russia, Ukraine, Central Europe, including the Baltic States, and elsewhere – shows how NATO’s horizons have widened. East and West, divided for too long, are now intertwined. NATO guaranteed the stability and defence of Western Europe since its foundation 50 years ago. It is now adapting and developing.

But there are unique qualities which we must hold on to.
NATO binds the United States and Canada with Europe. NATO members guarantee each others defence. We have an integrated military structure in which our forces plan for operations under a single command structure. NATO has prevented the nationalisation of defence for the first time in modern Europe. It is these qualities which have made the Alliance so strong and which we must preserve and cherish into the next century.

PARTNERSHIP

In the Cold War NATO’s main role was the defence of its own members in the face of a persistent and very real threat. Now, NATO exports security to others. We are now creating a framework of stability and security across the whole Euro-Atlantic area, with NATO at the core. The main tool is NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme. Partnership with 43 countries, including many who were once our adversaries.

Our partnerships with Russia and Ukraine are the most important. Negotiated so skilfully by Secretary-General Solana, backed by the vision and good sense of US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, who is speaking here later today, the NATO-Russia Founding Act ushered in a new era for Russian co-operation with the West. We now consult with Russia more intensively than ever before on issues ranging from proliferation and arms control to the Balkans and the Millennium Bug. The NATO-Ukraine Commission, too, is building up a track record, increasing understanding and laying the framework for working together.

ENLARGEMENT

Three of our Partners – Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic – have gone beyond partnership and later this week, at a ceremony at Independence, Missouri, will become members of the Alliance itself. These three countries which were fought over for too long, and this century rarely enjoyed real independence, will take the ultimate step to guarantee their defence by becoming members of the Alliance. They will also share responsibility for the defence of their fellow Allies.

I hope they and other European countries will also become members of the European Union in a few years time. NATO and the European Union, perhaps the World’s two most successful organisations, extending their reach and the benefits they bring.

NATO enlargement not only underpins the defence of its new members. It will also strengthen European security as a whole. Although Russia and others have their concerns, I believe these are now receding as the defensive nature of the Alliance and our wish for genuine partnership becomes clearer.

I want the process of NATO enlargement to continue, at the right pace. At the Washington Summit, we will commit ourselves to helping other applicants to prepare themselves to come through NATO’s open door. I look forward to more countries joining once they and NATO itself are ready, and as their inclusion in the Alliance strengthens European security as a whole.

BOSNIA AND KOSOVO

Sadly, the countries of the former Yugoslavia have not all shared in the progress made by NATO’s partners. NATO was slow to become engaged in the Balkan wars of the 1990s. We tried to bring peace to Bosnia through the UN and with political good offices but without the willingness to use force which we now know was necessary. Our troops, under the auspices of the UN, did a good job at great risk, to deliver humanitarian relief. But they could only deal with the symptoms of the problem. It was NATO that brought serious force to bear and gave the desperately needed muscle to end the war. Since Dayton, NATO has underpinned the peace and created the conditions in which Bosnia can rebuild.

In Kosovo, we will not repeat those early mistakes in Bosnia. We will not allow war to devastate a part of our continent, bringing untold death, suffering and homelessness. Robin Cook and Hubert Vedrine, with their partners in the Contact Group, made good progress at Rambouillet towards an interim political settlement based on substantial autonomy.

But political agreement is not enough: the Balkans are littered with agreements that are signed but not implemented. To make an agreement work, to bring stability to Kosovo, an international force is an indispensable element. Only NATO is equipped to lead it. Either side in the negotiations can wreck the chances of full agreement. But both must understand their interest in success.

The Kosovars should see that the time has come for the Kosovo Liberation Army to cease its operations and accept demilitarisation.
The Serbs must reduce their forces to agreed levels and allow a NATO-led force to underpin the new autonomy arrangements.
We will not accept prevarication in the negotiations. No side can be allowed to obstruct the process. In this crucial period President Milosevic and his commanders must also understand that NATO will not stand by in the face of renewed repression in Kosovo or atrocities like the one we witnessed recently at Racak. Nor can the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague.

True peace and security will not come to the Former Yugoslavia until authoritarian, nationalist governments give way to democracy based on ideas rather than ethnicity. Free press, a market economy, responsible and accountable government and an end to repression are all essential for the long term. NATO can help by providing a stable base. But it is for the people of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia to build their own civil societies and free institutions.

The countries of the Former Yugoslavia will integrate into the European mainstream eventually. Their leaders and societies have to become more like their counterparts in West and Central Europe before that can happen. I expect to see further political change in the Balkans. But political change should be achieved by political means. More war will only set back those dreams of security and prosperity to which the ordinary people of the Balkans aspire.

EUROPEAN DEFENCE

In dealing with the Balkan wars of the 1990s the full strength of the Alliance, Europeans and Americans working together, has been needed. Alliance cohesion with a strong US role, have given clout to our political efforts, and forced the warring factions to stop fighting and start negotiating. US engagement in European security was essential to our success. It will remain essential in dealing with future wars and other profound challenges to security and stability on our continent.

The initiative I launched last autumn on European defence is aimed at giving greater credibility to Europe’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. Far from weakening NATO this is an essential complement to the Transatlantic Alliance. We Europeans should not expect the United States to have to play a part in every disorder in our own back yard. The European Union should be able to take on some security tasks on our own, and we will do better through a common European effort than we can by individual countries acting on their own.

Europe’s military capabilities at this stage are modest. Too modest. Too few allies are transforming their armed forces to cope with the security problems of the 1990s and the 21st century. To strengthen NATO and to make European defence a reality, we Europeans need to restructure our defence capabilities so that we can project force, can deploy our troops, ships and planes beyond their home bases and sustain them there, equipped to deal with whatever level of conflict they may face. George Robertson will address this issue in more detail when he speaks to you on Wednesday. But let me assure you of this: European defence is not about new institutional fixes. It is about new capabilities, both military and diplomatic.

The declaration which President Jacques Chirac and I issued at St Malo was the first step to defining the new approach. We decided that we should go beyond the Berlin arrangements agreed by NATO in 1996 to give Europe a genuine capacity to act, and act quickly, in cases where the Alliance as a whole is not militarily engaged. In any particular crisis, the European Union will develop a comprehensive policy. But within that, deployment of forces is a decision for Governments. I see no role for the European Parliament or the Court of Justice. Nor will the European Commission have a decision-making role on military matters.

Anglo-French collaboration has continued and fleshed out the practical requirements for Europeans to decide and act soundly on military matters.

I want our Alliance as a whole to give support to these European developments. I look to our Summit in Washington to endorse some important next steps. It would be foolish and wasteful for Europe to duplicate the tried and tested military structures in which we already play a full part in the Alliance.

We should use what we have in the Alliance. But those structures and assets need to be more readily available for European led operations and we need to be able to rely on them being available. At the same time, we European Allies need to commit ourselves at the Washington Summit to develop the full range of capabilities needed for the sort of crisis management tasks and humanitarian operations where Europe might take the lead. Only then can we make European Defence a reality.

To retain US engagement in Europe, it is important that Europe does more for itself. A Europe with a greater capacity to act will strengthen both the European Union and the Alliance as a whole. And I want our Allies in NATO who are not members of the European Union to be able to play a full role in European operations, without reserve.

With the Alliance’s endorsement and agreement on these points, the next step will be the WEU Ministerial in May where we shall take stock of the first part of the audit of European capabilities, which I suspect will start to reveal how much more we Europeans need. The June European Council in Cologne will be an opportunity to draw these threads together. I hope we will reach agreement there on the principles for new arrangements for security and defence in Europe, giving the European Union a direct role and a close working relationship with NATO.

These tasks are substantial. Our responsibility is huge. 50 years ago a British Labour government helped found the NATO Alliance which locked Europe and North America safely together through all the dangerous years of the Cold War.

We are now creating new arrangements for the 21st century. We do not know exactly what dangers lie before us, what threats we will face. We must be prepared for some difficult challenges, for decades to come. Let us lay the foundations for dealing with them now in a spirit of partnership, cooperation, interdependence and commitment.

Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, at the Rail Summit on 25 February 1999.

Today is an important day for railways in Britain.

In 10 years’ time, I want today to be seen as the day of rail’s new beginning in Britain.

This government rightly focuses much of its intention on raising standards in our schools and hospitals. Education is key to our success as a nation. A thriving NHS gives all of us peace of mind.

But it is transport – our trains, and buses and roads – that often determine the quality of our life.

Most people use them almost every day. Most people face the anger, irritation and frustration when their journey takes twice as long as they would like.

When people talk about the rotten day they have had, they are often talking about the rail journey they have just taken. The train was cancelled. It took twice as long. It was so crowded they did not get a seat.

This has got to stop. A modern Britain needs a modern transport system. That means fast, punctual trains; a modernised efficient London Underground; cities not gummed up by congestion. Passengers given proper information, timetables that are easy to use, fares that don’t break the bank.

That is the agenda of passengers. And John Prescott and I are at this summit to champion the frustrated passenger.

Today’s summit is about how we end the misery and deliver for passengers.

It will take time. Just like rebuilding the NHS. Or creating a first class education system. Or reforming welfare.

These things take time. But today must be a day of commitment.

I know many of you share that commitment. I offer you a partnership to help realise it. But it must be a partnership based on success, results, real, genuine, sustained improvement in our transport system.

We have moved beyond the sterile debate between wholesale privatization and old-style state control. There is a different way. A third way. That’s what we’re doing on the London Underground. That’s what we’re doing with the Channel Tunnel rail link. That’s what we’re doing with the new Strategic Rail Authority.

Now I know that many of you here are working hard for a better rail system. I know that many of you are trying hard to make Britain’s railways better. I pay tribute to those in the industry who are getting results.

But I know as well that many of you here take the view that trying hard isn’t enough. I have to say to you plainly today that overall, the rail industry is not getting good enough results. It is not doing well enough. Its service standards are not high enough.

It needs to start doing better. And it needs to start doing better now.

I know it. Your customers know it. And you know it.

There has to be improvement. Above all in two key areas: in investment, and in service.

For too long Britain’s railways were systematically starved of investment. As a result, the fabric of the railway network we inherited when we came into Government was tattered, and torn. It was patently inadequate for its task. Our railways were, quite frankly, worn out.

I know investment is now increasing. 1800 vehicles, trains and carriages, have now been ordered and will be operative in the next two years. But there must be more. Not just replacing existing capacity but expanding. As a result of decisions taken in the last two years, there will be more drivers and better infrastructure and stock. But with passenger numbers rising we must do more. Because as it stands today, the railway system simply lacks the capacity to sustain our policies to expand both passenger travel and freight transport by rail, and to relieve road and air congestion.

To deliver those policies, we must invest – with the lion’s share of that investment coming from the private sector, in the public-private partnerships trailblazed by John Prescott.

Our watchwords apply to rail as to anywhere else: investment for reform, and money for modernisation. When investment goes up, service standards will go up too.

But at the same time, we need action now to improve services now.

Passenger complaints are rising. And passengers are right to complain because it is unacceptable to see punctuality falling back to the level it used to be under British Rail – and worse.

I know that it’s in part been driven by the growth of the number of passengers, 13 per cent up in the last two years, and in the increased number of services, but it is also the result of mistakes and poor management. Mistakes like getting rid of too many drivers and other staff. Like not having enough reliable rolling stock. Like defects in the track and signaling systems.

I welcome the move by the railway industry to try to combat the curse of a fragmented and incoherent industry. The new Strategic Rail Authority we shall be establishing will be a big help in putting that right. The Industry’s own action plans are steps in the right direction.

But you need to do more. And my central challenge to you today is this: you must improve your performance, improve punctuality and reliability, and combat overcrowding.

You must listen to your customers. You must give the passengers what they want – and what they’re paying for.

If you’re going to be true private sector companies operating in the market, then you must accept that in the railways as in other businesses, the customer really has got to be king.

I’m confident you have the resolve and the responsibility to accept the challenge I’m putting to you today. I believe you will put in place the improvements which are necessary. We will be monitoring your progress closely, and calling you back to another summit next year to hold you to account.

But though I do believe that you will be able to make progress and to secure improvement, I want today to make it perfectly clear to you that you are on trial.

You are failing your customers, and those who continue to fail them have no place in the rail industry of the future.

Companies in breach of their franchise agreements have seen action taken against them by the franchise director. Some of his actions have attracted criticism from people who’ve said they’ve not been tough enough.

You know we intend taking more and better powers to promptly punish poor performance.

But today I want to go further and say this to you: don’t think either that the length of the franchises held by train operating companies means that everything between us is set in stone.

Don’t think that because the franchises are contractually in place, there is nothing we can do to drive forward improvements. That we will have to wait until the franchises come to an end.

We are of course bound by the contractual arrangements reached by our predecessor in government.

But we are willing to go beyond those arrangements by opening negotiations now – negotiations which will lead to an extension of the franchise for the best-performing companies, the real improvers, regardless of when their current franchises are supposed to come to an end.

We know that there are companies who will steer clear of this offer. The poor performers. Those who are unwilling or unable to improve.

For them, the end of their franchise will mean exactly that.

The end.

But we know too that there are companies keen to start negotiating. Companies who are willing to offer improved performance and new investment in exchange for an extension to their franchise. Extra time over which they can earn a return on extra investment.

I welcome that. I look forward to these companies and the new rail authority sitting down in the very near future to start work together to improve standards and improve services.

Delivering on our promises on transport is as important to the Government as delivering on its promises in all our key areas, like education and health.

On transport, as with education and with health, we said we would deliver. And we will.

That’s the challenge for today. That’s the outcome I want to see from this summit.

I’m confident we can do it. I believe we can work together to achieve a step change improvement in rail transport. To take rail into a new era.

Today should be a new beginning for rail in Britain.

A new move towards the railway system of the future our country needs and deserves.

As a key part of a new, dynamic and confident Britain for the 21st century.

Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 26 January 1999.

NB – the original numbers have been lost from the transcript.

I am very pleased to be to speaking to you today. To 500 Charter Mark winners – a record. Many of you are previous winners. 18 of you are here for the third time.

So my first reason for speaking to you today is simple. To say thank you. To say thank you to Dyfed-Powys Police, for investigating every reported crime and solving two thirds of them; to the Compensation Agency in Northern Ireland for cutting costs by a tenth while increasing applicants’ satisfaction by a quarter; to the Newcastle Benefits Agency for working with the local authority to improve their service to pensioners. To say thank you to you all for the work you do.

But there’s another reason. I want others to notice how good government can be. Because we should value our best public servants – people like you – as much as our captains of industry.

Valuing public service

I said last week that we needed to change society’s prejudices about volunteering. That do-gooding shouldn’t be a term of derision. Well it’s the same for public service.

We inherited an under-valued public sector. It is absurd that we ever got into the position under the previous administration where government seemed to devalue the very people it relied upon to deliver its programme. Where private was always best. Where the public sector was always demonised as inefficient.

In the last 21 months, I’ve met many people across the public sector who are as efficient and entrepreneurial as anyone in the private sector, but also have a sense of public duty that is awe-inspiring. Most of them could be earning far more money in business. But they don’t and you don’t.

Why not? Because of a commitment to public service. Because helping a five year old to read, coaxing a patient out of a coma, convicting a burglar is fulfilling in a way that money can’t buy. This country needs its wealth creators, but it needs its social entrepreneurs as well.

So let me say today, loud and clear – this government values public service; this government is proud of its public servants. What made you choose this career is what made me go into politics – a chance to serve, to make a difference. It is not just a job. It is a vocation. Britain relies on that ethos of public service, and we need to rekindle it if we are to deliver improved public services.

After 18 years of public service being talked down, this is a difficult task. There was a time when we could assume that the brightest and best of each generation would want to join the public sector. But that is an assumption we can no longer make, particularly when the financial rewards at the top of the private sector are so great, and too often public sector workers are weighed down by bureaucracy and silly rules.

So this year I want to launch a major new initiative on this. Not delivering a solution from on high, but starting from what public servants think, from your day-to-day experience, your successes and frustrations. Through this speech today I want to start a conversation with public servants and others, about recruitment, retention and motivation. Write to me or take part in the debate on the Number 10 web site. We will respond through the Modernising Government White Paper later this year. And we will not duck the difficult questions you raise.

So, first, we will tackle pay. For example, in teaching, we are proposing the most radical changes to the profession in living memory. In health, we will see that nurses are properly rewarded and improve recruitment and retention. In both, we are revising pay scales and introducing new grades – advanced skills teachers and nurse consultants – so that more can afford to stay at the front-line.
But increased pay must be tied to improved results. And that may mean taking on some sacred cows to make better use of the pay bill. Do we need greater differentials within the public sector? Should we decentralise pay more? What are the lessons of performance pay and where else should we be using it?

Of course, there will always be constraints on public resources. We will never match the salaries at the top end of the private sector. So we need to look at non-financial rewards too.

This is about esteem – from ceremonies like today’s to nominations to the House of Lords, from careers advice to portrayal in the media. But what more should we do?

It’s about career prospects. So in both teaching and health we are looking to fast-track careers. But what more do we need to do to retain the enthusiasm of young people? Should we be devolving responsibility earlier and further down our organisations? How can we spot those with exceptional potential and bring them on quicker?

It is about making sure we get the best people into public service drawn from all sections of the community and all ethnic and religious backgrounds. So for example new patterns of family life mean working habits must change. But progress is often frustratingly slow. What more could we do to make a difference?

It’s about developing skills. So, we’re creating the Centre for Management and Policy Studies in Whitehall – a virtual business school for the public sector. There are similar initiatives in health, education, local government. But again we may need to do more.
It’s about greater career flexibility. So we are examining how we can make it easier for people to move between departments and around the public sector. And we need to get more interchange with the private sector – so it becomes routine rather than exceptional for there to be private sector appointments to the civil service for a few years and civil servants gaining experience in the private sector before rejoining the civil service.

And of course it means not tolerating mediocrity in the public sector. I make no apology for saying that we cannot afford incompetent teachers, nurses, police officers, local government workers. Because all that will do is undermine the good work done by people like you. So, what more could we do to have fast but fair disciplinary and incompetence procedures?

Modernising public services

So we need to value and reward public servants. But the main reason people will come into the public sector and their most important reward will still be the chance to make a difference, to be part of a public service they are proud of. So I now want to turn to our strategy for modernising public services.

This must start with a diagnosis of the problems faced by the public sector. First, they needed proper investment, especially schools and hospitals. So, over the next three years, we are investing in our public services – � billion in health and education alone.

But the problem was not just how much government spent. It was how it was spent. Ministers traditionally spent most of their time fighting yearly spending rounds. Departments pursued policies that were contradictory. Efficiencies were covered up for fear the Treasury would take the money back. Front line workers were hampered by silly rules.

We’ve already started to address these problems and will elaborate our strategy in the White Paper. I believe it is nothing short of a quiet revolution in the way government works in Britain, an approach focused on outcomes, rather than inputs.

That’s why we started with a Comprehensive Spending Review – so that we could adapt the spending patterns we inherited to the priorities on which we were elected.

We have made big changes in what the money is spent on, but only in return for clear targets. For the first time, these have been published, in Public Service Agreements. They set out long term objectives in each area, backed by 500 clear, demanding targets such as: cutting deaths from heart disease and strokes by a third amongst people under 65; or getting half of 16 year olds achieving 5 or more A-C’s at GCSE.

In turn, departments are setting standards for local public services to deliver – whether on exam results, rough sleepers, truancy or waiting lists. And local agencies are setting their own targets for local people to judge their success.

Focusing on outcomes will allow us to address the second traditional weakness of Whitehall I mentioned – contradictory policy making. Government is organised vertically, with departments based on the function they perform – such as paying benefits or running the National Health Service. But people’s problems are rarely so neat: the socially excluded will need help not only with housing, but education, health and so on; starting up a new business will involve interaction with a whole range of Government agencies.

We are determined to overcome these divisions. New approaches to joined up government are being tried all over Whitehall – the Social Exclusion Unit in the Cabinet Office, Sure-start for the very young or the new Active Community Unit that we announced last week. All examples of policies being developed and implemented jointly across departments, with joint targets and often joint budgets.
Focusing on outcomes also helps us free up the public sector. Because we have agreed what departments are trying to achieve, we spend less time double guessing how they do it. The centre can devote more time to developing strategy and less to trying to micro-manage front line services.

In particular, we have given departments three year spending plans. Departments can now shift money between programmes and keep any savings they make from one year to the next – another revolution in Whitehall, which should eradicate the traditional March rush to spend unused budgets before the end of the financial year.

Again, departments are passing those freedoms on to their front line. We have abolished crude and universal capping of council tax, while at the same time protecting local tax payers. We have put doctors and nurses in the driving seat in shaping and funding local health services.

And the more successful you are, the more autonomy we will give you. So, for example, OFSTED is introducing a light touch inspection regime for good schools. The best councils – beacon councils – will in due course have more freedom to vary local taxes.

But that doesn’t mean we will tolerate failure. Because the people who suffer from a bad service are the users – the pupils, the ill, the elderly, often the most vulnerable in society.

So we need rigorous and fair inspection systems to know whether public services are achieving their targets. We need league tables to allow individuals to choose which services to use. And we need competition within the public sector and where appropriate with the private sector – because what matters is not who delivers the service but the outcome it secures.

Now freeing up the public sector doesn’t mean we will cut you adrift. We will help you by spreading best practice. This needs to be rigorous, based on evidence of what does and doesn’t work. In the health service, we are setting up the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness – to assess what treatments works best and at what cost and issue guidance to front-line doctors. In local government, we welcome the fact that the LGA has set up a new Improvement and Development Agency. In education, we are implementing a numeracy and literacy strategy to tackle decades of under-performance.

But guidance from the centre can only go so far. The problems you face are all different. You often know how to solve them, but are held back by silly rules or set ways of doing things. That’s the rationale behind action zones for health, education and employment. They are laboratories to test new ways of working. They suspend rules that stifle innovation and ensure that those innovations can be spread around the system.

But it’s also about culture. We shouldn’t be afraid to take risks, even if that means risking failure. When we fail, we should learn from our mistakes. Because if we never make mistakes we’ll never change anything. My idea of the ideal public servant is not someone who never fails, but someone who always tries to make a difference.

Finally, we need to organise our services around the individual. That means listening to their views. That is why we have set up a People’s Panel of 5000 to ask taxpayers about the services they get. And it means organising services around the needs of users, not the convenience of producers. We live in a 24 hour economy – we can no longer deliver services 9 to 5, Monday to Friday. We are in the middle of an information revolution – we need to explore how the telephone and the Internet can improve convenience. For example, NHS Direct will enable people to contact a nurse over the phone when they need help, rather than going to hard-pressed A&E departments.

So we need public services that feel tailor-made – not uniform,’one size fits all’. We need to find better ways of delivering services, particularly enabled by new technology. And there’s a �5 billion Capital Modernisation Fund to turn those new ideas into reality.

Conclusion

I’ve argued today that we need to turn back the tide. Stop denigrating public service, start valuing public servants again. Match the private sector at its best, be proud of the public sector at our best. Provide proper rewards and funding, not services starved of cash and with low morale.

I’ve tried to start a debate about attracting people into the public sector. I’ve said that will involve financial and non-financial rewards. And that it will involve giving you the resources to do your jobs.
I have outlined our strategy. Invest in public services. Focus on outcomes. Devolve power to the front-line. Value the public servants who succeed. Encourage innovation. Work across government boundaries. Organise around the individual.

We will set this vision out at more length in the White paper. I look forward to your views. Because together we can make a real difference, to the prosperity of our country and to the lives of our citizens, in particular the vulnerable and excluded. I know you will rise to the challenge.

Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 25 January 1999.

A year ago this month, four out of five Britons were aware of the Millennium Bug. Today, virtually all are.

A year ago, only a quarter of smaller companies had started to fix it. Today, half have.

Only some two thirds of local authorities had started. Today, all of you have.

So first of all I want to thank you for the work you do, whether as officers or councillors, day in day out, tackling the Bug. As in so many other areas, you are the ones who turn speeches like this into reality.

Thank you also to four people from central government. Margaret Beckett – who has mastered the issue with her usual calm effectiveness. John Prescott – who was telling local authorities about the importance of the Bug before it became fashionable. But most of all Don Cruickshank and Iain Anderson who have been advising government on our work with the private and public sectors respectively. Not many people would leap to take a job where if you help solve the problem, you will be criticised for crying wolf, and if you don’t, you will be held responsible for accidents beyond your control. But it is typical of both of them that they did and have set about their task with determination.

So we have come a long way in 1998. But we cannot be complacent. My purpose today is to spur you on to finish the job. Think of it as a half time pep talk – we’re definitely ahead of the game, but could still throw it all away.

This time last year, many companies weren’t even aware of the problem. Awareness is now 100% – thanks to the work of Action 2000. But the job isn’t finished. Action 2000’s judgement now is that as a rule larger companies will be ready. But half of smaller companies have not yet started work. The good news is that they still have time to fix the problem if they act now. The bad news is that if they don’t, they risk severe problems, including bankruptcy.

Of course, Action 2000 hasn’t been the only organisation raising awareness. Many private companies, like BT and NatWest, have decided the best way to help themselves is to help the smaller companies who are their suppliers and clients. And many local authorities have done the same – for example the Isle of Wight and Lewisham who have organised seminars for local businesses.
This time last year, the skills shortage in small companies looked insuperable. That’s why I announced the Bug Buster programme -to train 20,000 small company employees.

The latest figures show that 18,000 people have either been trained, are being trained or have booked their course. We will not only meet the targets I set last year. We will do more. I can today announce that we will expand the programme by 10,000 places to 30,000 in all. And these figures are only for England. If you add in figures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland we will have trained 36,000. Local authorities can also benefit from the expertise which the TECs have developed – you can buy Bug Buster courses from your local team.

This time last year, there was no way of knowing what effect the Bug would have on the national infrastructure. Companies that had been focused on sorting out their own problems were starting to worry that those efforts would be in vain if, for example, their electricity or phones didn’t work.

Since then, Action 2000 has created the National Infrastructure Forum, which brings together the utilities and major public services to work together to prepare for the Bug.

They are undergoing one of the most rigorous and objective assessments anywhere in the world. Last Thursday the regulators reported on progress in the key power, telecoms and finance sectors. Their assessment was that these sectors are well on the way to beating the bug.

But the job is not finished. Don Cruickshank will be explaining later this morning what he hopes the Forum will achieve this year. And there is also a crucial role for local authorities to play here. We need an Infrastructure Forum in each region. Nick Raynsford has already set up a team in London because the eyes of the world will be on London as we go into the new Millennium.

So let me turn now to the meat of today’s conference – action at the local level.

This time last year, John Prescott and Jeremy Beecham wrote to you asking every leader and chief executive to make dealing with the Bug one of the council’s top priorities.

We all depend on your services – whether traffic lights and waste collection, benefits or housing. If you can’t do this because of the Bug, we will all be affected. And when things go wrong, people turn to their councils, particularly the vulnerable – such as the old and the disabled.

I know from my visits around the country and what colleagues tell me that you are acting:

Sorting out your systems

Leading local emergency planning

Raising awareness

That you are here today indicates that local government is treating the bug seriously. I want to thank the LGA for organising the conference – a great opportunity to pool knowledge and share best practice. For example, Hertfordshire and Suffolk Coastal District Council will be sharing with you later their approaches to emergency planning. Earlier this month, all the key organisations in Lincolnshire signed the Millennium Bug Pledge – pledging to co-operate and to share information.

If any of you have not yet signed the Pledge, you can do so here today.

But that is only a first step. We know that in local government, as elsewhere, the job is not finished. Indeed, in some councils there are particular problems which have been identified by the Audit Commission. The best amongst you have sorted out your problems, just as our best companies have. But others still have a good way to go. No one can afford to be complacent.

So we are today announcing a package of measures to help local government prepare for the Bug. They are not financial – our proposals for local authority spending already make provision for dealing with the Bug. Today’s measures are about sharing information and expertise. It is a package developed in close partnership with the LGA and the Audit Commission. John Prescott, Jeremy Beecham and Helena Shovelton, the new Chair of the Audit Commission, are writing to all council leaders today to tell them what we are doing, how it will help them, and what they need to do.
For our part, we are setting up in each of the Government Offices a dedicated team, including people from local authorities, to work with councils in their region.

These teams, drawing on the work of the LGA and Audit Commission, will form an overview of what has been achieved and what else needs to be done in their areas. They will work with councils, helping them to share experience and best practice. They will be able to play an important part in providing public reassurance.

Because, as in central government, we need to be straight with the public about the state of progress. No one can afford to miss the deadline and if anyone falls behind, the Audit Commission will have to name them.

So a huge amount of work has been done in local government, with the LGA acting as a key catalyst. You have made real progress, and we are counting on you to finish the job in 1999.

This time last year, the Bug was a potential national emergency. I think Britain has risen to this challenge and that the threat of serious disruption over the Millennium is now falling.

But ironically, now is the time we need to plan for such an emergency, even if its likelihood is falling. This is something the media find hard to understand – they assume that because we have plans we must be worried. The truth is that the government has well-established procedures for a wide range of emergencies – from floods to terrorism, from hurricanes to epidemics. Very few of these risks ever materialise, but we would be foolhardy and much criticised if we didn’t plan for them.

The same is true for the Millennium Bug. We are not inventing new procedures – we are adapting them to the particular circumstances of the Bug, such as New Year’s Eve. Indeed, this emergency is in some respects easier to plan for because we know the risk dates in advance.

Mike O’Brien, from the Home Office, will be saying more about this later today. For now, I would simply say that many councils are doing excellent work in this area. One example is the Sussex Millennium Management Group. It has asked everyone who is running a millennium event in Sussex to provide details of their plans. This means their plans can take account of the overall picture of the celebrations in the area.

Finally, let me say a few words about the international situation. The bug is the ultimate symptom of the global economy – we share much of the same technology and if one country’s infrastructure fails other countries will be affected.

So Britain has taken a lead internationally. The Foreign Office has undertaken an intensive global awareness raising programme. Our embassies have contacted governments to raise the profile of the issue. Our early contribution of £10 million to the World Bank’s Year 2000 programme has supported work in nearly 200 countries.

We have made sure that the Bug is addressed in all relevant international organisations – from the United Nations to the EU.
As a result of our efforts and those of other countries the level of global action has risen dramatically. We will now target our efforts on countries who remain less informed and on developing countries. And we will be working with international partners to achieve more effective co-ordination.

Time is the most precious commodity with the Millennium Bug, so I won’t take up any more of yours. I believe that 1998 was the year Britain really got to grips with the Bug. We have made real progress – in raising awareness, dealing with the Bug in private and public organisations and developing joint approaches at local, national and international levels.

My message today has been to thank you for your part in that and to ask you to finish the job in 1999. There is no room for complacency. Finish sorting out your systems. Think about how you can best ensure the continuity of essential services. Lead infrastructure work in your areas. Adapt your emergency plans. If we work in partnership, we can make sure the transition to the year 2000 is remembered not for major disruptions, but for its unique celebrations.

Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 21 January 1999.

We all know problems in our communities that we could solve given a few hundred or thousand pounds. Some goalposts to turn a disused piece of ground into a football pitch. Some training to help teenagers who drop in to a community centre. Some child care to help single mothers look for work or training.
Well today I want to celebrate a scheme that encourages both ideas like these and the local heroes behind them – the Millennium Awards Fellowships.

It’s a £200 million Lottery programme. It provides grants to turn ideas into action – to empower ordinary people to do extraordinary things.

Today we are recognising the first 4,000 award winners. Award winners who have led neighbourhood clean up projects, got children interested in science, improved community transport. Who have worked with the elderly – on befriending schemes or learning to use the internet to keep in touch with grandchildren. Cybergrannies who put people like me to shame.

And most of the awards are to people who never before felt they had a role to play in their community.

By the year 2004, over 40,000 people will have won awards. So I want the message to go out today – get involved, apply for an award, nominate someone you know.

Because this is what I mean by community – that we are more than a set of individuals just looking after ourselves. We achieve far more by working together than we do alone. Because the truth is by giving a couple of hours of a week, we can make a real difference to the lives of others.

This scheme will help build those communities. Each award winner will become a Millennium Fellow. We want to forge a link between you, creating a network of 40,000 people, so you can keep on helping your communities and encourage ever more people to get involved.

This is how I want to celebrate the Millennium. Celebrating extraordinary events. Extraordinary global events like the Dome. But also extraordinary local people like today’s award winners.

So, thank you and good luck.

Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on the Teachers Green Paper on 19 January 1999.

NB – the original numbers have been lost from the transcript.

I am delighted to be with you this morning. Education is the government’s top priority. But we can’t achieve our goals without a first-class teaching profession – a profession which is capable, well-led and properly supported.We already have very many excellent teachers and headteachers. But we need more. And we need to make a fundamental change to the status of teachers in our society – putting them where they belong, on a par with doctors and other top professionals.For too long teachers have wrongly been regarded as second class professionals. This must change if we are to succeed in creating a world-class education service for the 21st century.That’s why we are investing an extra �bn in education over the next three years. And why we are devoting part of the money to supporting and improving the teaching profession.Our proposals are set out in the Teaching Green Paper published before Christmas. There has been a huge response from schools and individual teachers. It’s because I want to hear your views first-hand that I am here today for the first in a series of consultation meetings hosted by education Ministers and officials.Before Estelle Morris makes a brief presentation and we take your questions, let me make three points.First, what I call the big picture.A lot of attention has focussed on our proposals for teachers’ pay. This is obviously a crucial issue.But our plans need to be seen in the context of far wider proposals:

• A doubling of investment in school buildings over the next three years.
• A revolution in the provision of IT equipment, and training to see that teachers are confident in using it.
• A big increase in funding for training and back-up in schools, including more support staff and teaching assistants, freeing teachers to teach effectively.
• A range of programmes, spearheaded by the literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools, to give teachers better support in their jobs.

Our proposals need to be seen as a whole. Greater financial rewards for teachers are just one element. It is taken together – not in isolation- that we believe that they will transform the status and working conditions of teachers. David Blunkett and I have never claimed that there is a single quick fix.Secondly, even in the area of pay, we aren’t only talking about rewards for individual performance. We recognise the importance of team working – and of rewards for successful team working.That’s why, as David Blunkett said, our plans include a new national fund of � million a year to reward all staff at schools which demonstrate excellent performance or significant improvement. Let me stress that we aren’t just talking about the top schools by raw results – but also schools which show the highest level of sustained improvement, whatever their starting point.Third, the question of individual rewards for performance. I know there are concerns, particularly about crude judgements based on exam results, and about comparability between schools.We take these concerns seriously. The Government will want to see appraisal recognise success in improving performance, whatever the starting point. Headteachers and line managers must play an important role in making judgements, as they already do on a host of other matters besides pay. But we will want to ensure proper national standards, with external assessors to ensure credibility and consistency.Let’s be clear why we are doing this. I want a situation where our best teachers – not just a small number at the top, but a large proportion of the profession – are better paid and better motivated. Where more of our best graduates choose teaching and rise faster through the profession. And where successful leadership is better rewarded – particularly headteachers who take on the toughest schools and turn them round.These are urgent national imperatives. Better incentives for performance are one, though only one, way of meeting them.

Teachers have everything to gain from these proposals. So do the parents and pupils who our schools exist to serve.

Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 15 January 1999.

NB – the original numbers have been lost from the transcript.

I am delighted to be with you this morning – to see at first hand the good progress you are making in your school and the wider community through your Education Action Zone. And to launch the second round of EAZs nationwide – which have a key role to play in equipping Britain with a world class education service for the 21st century.

I cannot repeat too often that education is this Government’s top priority.

It is central to everything we stand for – making our nation strong and competitive, enlarging opportunity, building successful families and responsible citizens, and eliminating social exclusion.

That’s why we have launched an unprecedented crusade to raise standards. Why we have set ambitious attainment targets for every level of education. Why we are modernising the teaching profession. Why we have launched the New Deal to improve school buildings – from which more than 2,000 schools have already benefited.

Above all, it’s why we took the tough choices needed to re-order government spending so that education could get an extra � billion over the next three years – the best deal education has ever got from the national budget.

This �bn is not a cost, but an investment in our country’s future. It is an investment tied to clear goals. To make good schools beacons of excellence. To turn poor and mediocre schools into good schools. To make children of all backgrounds enjoy learning and achieve their highest potential.

Education Action Zones are a key part of our new investment.

EAZs are local partnerships to raise standards. We don’t have a national blueprint – what matters is what works. We are keen to see EAZs pioneer new approaches to learning and achievement, for the benefit of their own communities and as an example to others.

I know you are taking that mission seriously here in Blackburn. And I congratulate everyone involved in the zone for their energy and commitment.

I have just seen how new ‘whiteboard’ technology – a giant interactive computer screen – can promote new links between teachers and pupils, schools and businesses, and between different schools. The pupils working with engineers from British Aerospace on designing new products are learning skills of real benefit to their future lives and careers.

This is only one of many projects in your EAZ. I was particularly interested to hear about your early intervention team to tackle barriers to learning on housing estates, working with a dedicated Youth Offending Team.

Breaking down barriers is one of our toughest challenges:

• Cultural barriers that make too many children think that success at school isn’t for them.
• Bureaucratic barriers between different state and local agencies which have a shared remit for the welfare of young people
• The barriers between the public and private sectors – between schools and employers, in particular.

Progress will only come from working together. Companies need successful schools in their area, and EAZs are an historic opportunity to play a part in forging them.

When people say ‘keep business out of schools’ I say: ‘the more support and involvement of the wider community – including business – in our schools, the better.’Schools and colleges should be working closely with employers to ensure that young people leave with the right skills and aspirations. The voluntary sector also has a larger role to play.

So I wish you every success as you take forward your EAZ in Blackburn.

Today we are inviting bids for the second round of EAZs. Our expectations are high. Let me emphasise three points.

First, we stand ready to make another significant investment. But we are looking for committed partnerships between schools, businesses and parent and community groups. By committed partnerships, I mean partnerships offering strong local leadership and clear goals.

Second, EAZs are about raising standards dramatically. They are not about innovation for its own sake, or for topping up budgets, but about projects closely targeted on raising achievement within a defined period, particularly in schools which need support over and above that which they are already receiving.

We therefore expect bids to pay attention to achievement targets agreed nationally and locally – not least our targets for raising attainment in English and maths at 11, for improving success rates across the board at GCSE, for cutting truancy and non-attendance, and for promoting participation post-16.

This is not an exclusive list, of course. Plenty of other areas merit attention – for example, projects to encourage very able and talented children to achieve their full potential.

We also expect that many bidders will wish to take forward proposals in the Teaching Green Paper to ensure the highest quality of teaching and leadership in our schools. We are looking for concrete proposals to raise standards – and evidence that they are likely to work.

Third, the role of Local Education Authorities. One of our key principles is that intervention in schools should be in inverse proportion to success. That includes intervention by both central government and by LEAs.

Within this framework, as David Blunkett said last week, we are keen to see modern and effective LEAs help weaker schools raise standards. LEAs which rise to this challenge have an important role to play – including a partnership role in Education Action Zones, as in Blackburn.

But we want LEAs to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Where this isn’t the case, we think it right that schools and other interested parties should be able to forge their own EAZ partnerships.

Partnership is the key. But partnership to modernise – not partnership to drift.

David Blunkett and I have always been clear about our intentions. New investment in our schools. A new voice for education at the heart of government. Bold measures such as EAZs to energise local communities.

But all for a purpose. To raise standards. To eliminate failure. To give us a world class education service, transforming the prospects of our young people.

I know you share that goal. We must work together to achieve it.

Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, at his monthly press conference. The press conference was held on 15 January 2004.

PRIME MINISTER:

Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to this monthly press conference and we are going to start with what will be a short presentation on tuition fees, but nonetheless I think it is worthwhile just going back through the arguments again and John here is going to cope with my lack of technological capability by taking you through the various slides.

Let me just set it out for you again. The purpose is to get a fair future for higher education, and we believe our reform package is better for all students because the up front fees – people won’t pay fees going through University, and there is a fair graduate repayment system, it’s better for poorer students because there is a new £3,000 a year support package for the poorest students, and it is better for Universities because they are going to see a big increase in their funding.

Now why is it necessary to do this? It is necessary because there’s been a 36% fall in funding per student in the 8 years prior to us coming to office, it is necessary because University places are being expanded. We are now at 43% of under-30’s in University, but that is projected to rise. There’s a misunderstanding here sometimes. People say we have set some sort of arbitrary target. The reason we have an aim of 50% is that it is actually projected that it will rise to 50% by 2010 in line with both rising school standards and employer demands, and it is necessary to make these changes also because even with this expansion we are still getting far too low participation rates from the poorest families.

Now this actually shows graphically why it is that we need change because what you will see is that the blue line is University funding, and you will see that that University funding, particularly after we came to office in 1997, has been rising so we have been putting more State money into Universities, but the pink line is the funding per student. That fell, as I say, dramatically before we came into office. All we have been able to do, because student numbers are still expanding, is to keep that static, but it is still significantly below where it was 15-20 years ago.

Now the student support. What are we doing here? Obviously first of all there is the fee deferral, so this is a completely different concept from tuition fees that a family has to find whilst their children are going through University. They won’t have to find that money at all now. No family will have to do that whilst going through University. We’ve also then made a higher repayment threshold for the loans, starting at £15,000 not £10,000 per year as now, and actually a more generous system as well, as I will come to in a moment. We are writing off the loans after 25 years, and the maintenance loans will be increased to cover average living costs, so that is a very significant package of student support that will help us widen access.

Now, for the poorest however there will be a £3,000 a year package for those studying the more expensive courses – half of it will be pure grant – and no student from a poorer background need take on extra loans. So how do we compare with the two proposals, if you like, or the two schemes. What happens now and what happens under the new system. Well first of all obviously under the new system there’s no payment up front and the effect is actually far better obviously because people don’t pay the fees on their way through University. Then secondly the writing off of the loans, at the moment for the maintenance loan, remember most students, about 80% of students, have got the full maintenance loan. I think the average is round about £10,000 of debt now, so it’s not as if this is an unknown concept, but that loan is only written off on reaching age 65 or death. Now it is going to be automatically both maintenance and fee loan written off after 25 years. This particularly means that for example if a woman goes to University but decides she wishes to stay at home to look after the children and decides not to go back to work again, then that is written off, and the effect obviously is a fairer system. And then finally there’s the grants for poorer students. This maintenance grant is being reintroduced in line actually with the original Dearing recommendations of some years ago and that of course is a substantial change. One substantial measure of support is that for the first time in years poorer students are actually going to get maintenance support, and that is at £1,500 a year, and together with the rest of the package, as I say, it is a support package of £3,000 in total.

And then what that then means is for student loans, the interest charge continues to be no real interest rate which is obviously very important, and the graduate contribution is a graduate contribution that is obviously over a longer period of time with better systems of repayment.

And then finally, if I could just show you two other things, that sets out the scheme for you where you see how much more beneficial it is the new scheme than the old scheme because for example under the existing scheme the maintenance loan that a student will pay off if they earn £20,000 a year after graduation they will be paying £17 a week at the moment, but under the new scheme combined fee and maintenance low will be round about half that, so it is far more generous to people in the early stages of their graduation when they may be earning less money.

QUESTION:

(Indistinct)

PRIME MINISTER:

Well of course you have to pay back the amount of the loan that is true, but what it means is that in the early stages of your work you’re actually better able to pay it off, and you’re not subject to the same financial pressures as when you will be paying off at the moment on £20,000 a year £17 a week.

Then the final thing which I think is an important point to make because this is all about in the end obviously this is a debate in the House of Commons and that is tremendously important. We have to get the Bill through, of course we do, but I think the other thing is that that is in part influenced by the debate in the country and I think this is both a very interesting and important set of figures because what it shows is what we actually invest in the education of our young people at each stage and what it shows is that in the early years we invest least, and we actually invest £5,300 a year for each University student, which we will continue to do, that’s the public money that goes into it, and that is actually more than we invest in Primary or Secondary education per child. Now the reason we put this up here is to say surely it is fair therefore if you are going to increase University funding, to ask for a balance back from the student after graduation because otherwise that set of figures that already means that we put a higher investment as taxpayers into University students than we do into Primary or Secondary schoolchildren, then that imbalance would be even greater. And that’s why I say in the end it is fair, particularly in circumstances where 80% of the taxpayers in this country have not been to University, that we do ask from graduates a bigger proportion of the investment back. It doesn’t mean to say that the government and the taxpayer is still not going to make a major investment in their education. We are going to do so, but we will balance the contribution so that it is not just from the general taxpayer, it is also from the University student.

One final point I would make as well, and that is that the interesting thing is if you look round the world today those countries that are making the biggest improvements in their higher education systems are ones with schemes similar to the one that we are proposing here. And that’s why I think this debate is important. It’s important for the future of the country because University education is of increasing importance. It is important to the reform of public services because we are showing how public services can be reformed in a modern progressive way for today’s world – not 30 or 40 years ago – and it’s important because in the end it allows us to put together the two essential concepts which is to meet future challenges in a way that is fair for all people, not simply a few, and for that reason I think whatever the difficulties in the coming weeks I believe that we will win this argument, but I believe that as each day passes it is more obvious how important it is that we do win this argument for the future of the country.

QUESTION:

Prime Minister, we are as you have just shown us into the detail of this argument now. So could you possibly tell us your own view about the idea of switching £1,200 towards the maintenance grant for poorer students from the discounted fees that the money is used for at the moment?

PRIME MINISTER:

You mean that you roll up more of the fee remission into maintenance grant?

QUESTION:

For poorer students you are able therefore to give them an extra £1,200 up front. It’s something Charles Clarke’s been talking about?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well I would express it in exactly the way Charles did when he did his package. We are now going to give a £3,000 per year support package to poorer students. As Charles rightly says however it may be that some of those students would prefer to take this money more in maintenance than in fee remission. Now he said that over time we will look at how we move to that. At the moment what we’ve got is a £1,500 maintenance grant for poorer students and then the rest of it in fee remission. But yes it is perfectly possible to move towards a different system in the future.

QUESTION:

You wouldn’t be against that yourself?

PRIME MINISTER:

No, no on the contrary I think there is everything to be said for it.

QUESTION:

Prime Minister, if the case that you’re setting out for a new system of University funding is as powerful as you say it is, why are so many of your own MPs refusing to accept it? Could it be that they are just being cussed, or could it be that they want to undermine your authority and get rid of you?

PRIME MINISTER:

It’s a big reform and these reforms are always difficult, and if you look back on the history of big social, economic, political reform in the past 20 or 30 years, they have always caused controversy because we’re asking people to think anew and there are two elements of argument against us at the moment. One is to say, look University education should be free and therefore the whole concept of fees is wrong. Now I believe it is not fair to put all the burden on the general taxpayer, and I think the country will understand that as you expand higher education places it is fair to ask for the graduate to make a contribution back into the system once they graduate, but we have got to win that argument. And the second argument is on the variability of the fee and there I think it is important to stress that to force all Universities to charge the same for every course and every University to be treated the same is just not either realistic or fair. There will be 2-year foundation courses that Universities will want to charge less for, than say a 3 or 4-year science or engineering degree, and I think that’s perfectly sensible. Or a law degree. And I think to encourage that diversity is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Now the battle is still there to win. It is true the argument is moving our way, but the battle is still there to win. We need to make sure that people understand that this is a genuine attempt to get a fair solution to a problem that is of huge importance to future prosperity in Britain. These reforms are always difficult, but it’s interesting, isn’t it, that when you see today the reports on specialist schools and how well specialist schools are doing, and two or three years ago I was told that they would be elitist, that they would end up with a system that would return to selective education. Actually what has happened is these specialist schools are making huge improvements in results, with mixed ability intake, because they are teaching in a different way and because the system is working better. Now, that reform argument today has been won. But two years it was highly controversial. And I believe the same will be here for University finance, but I don’t underestimate it, it’s always a difficult call.

QUESTION:

But what about the motivation of those who are opposing? Are some people fighting other arguments using this as a cloak?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think it is probably not wise for me to get into speculating about people’s motives and just try, whatever their motives are, to shift the vote the right way.

QUESTION:

On Andy’s point, just a point of detail, you talked about it in terms of the future this question of converting the remission into an up-front payment. Is it something that you would contemplate doing at the start of student loans, or do you see that much further down the track? And just going back to Robin’s point, do you now regret having made this such a confrontational argument, having put your authority on the line as you did at the last press conference, and in fact if you did lose the vote, would you feel you could continue to lead a Party that clearly didn’t want to go along with the kind of market reforms you have in mind?

PRIME MINISTER:

On the first point that Andy raised – and incidentally there has actually been some wrong speculation in the papers about what this involves this morning – actually this is precisely what Charles was talking about when he launched his package. When we could do it. I don’t know. I can’t be sure at this stage. But there is merit in at least giving people the option as to whether they want to take more in fee remission or more in maintenance grant.

QUESTION:

It is reported this morning that the Chancellor is against that because of the cost implications.

PRIME MINISTER:

I thought it actually reported the other way round, but I don’t know.

QUESTION:
Well which way round is it?

PRIME MINISTER:
Whatever way it is reported isn’t actually correct. It has not been a discussion between the Education Secretary and the Chancellor. This has been something that the Education Secretary actually set out right at the beginning. And what you find in this is a constant running sore about who is agreeing with who and who is disagreeing …..

QUESTION:
What is the position then?

PRIME MINISTER:

The record is exactly what I have just said which is that as Charles said when he announced the package we are at the moment doing this. We are splitting it up into some fee remission and some maintenance grant, though you can use the maintenance grant to put towards the fees, but as Charles said when he launched the package, there is merit in moving over time to a situation where you could take more of that in maintenance if that’s what you wanted, and it all depends on what you think is the problem for poorer students. Is it the fee, or is it the maintenance? Now, I have some sympathy with the view that actually it is the maintenance that the poorest student worries about. How am I going to pay my way through University, because after all the fee is deferred, and the repayment of the fee is not a function of the family income from which they came, but the income that they will earn after graduation. So I think there is merit in moving towards this. This has not been a bone of contention at all within government. Everybody wants to move in that direction but we need to work out …. not so much cost issues actually, it is work how you manage to do that, how you make that system work, and also how you do it without maybe taking the choice that some people may decide they would prefer to put that money into fee remission. Do you see what I mean.

Now, in relation to the other point. Why is this so important? You’ve got to take a decision as Prime Minister about what the purpose of being in government is, and the purpose of being in government is to take difficult decisions that you believe to be right in the interests of the country and to see them through, and the reason why I have put so much effort into University reform is that I genuinely believe in the future the only economic course for this country is to get a better and better educated workforce and we have to pay for that in a fair way, and whereas 6 or 7 years ago when I was elected and said education is the number one priority I meant, and everyone believed I meant, schools. If you talk about education today, you have also got to talk about adult skills, University education, and educating children even before they get to Primary school. And therefore this is part of trying to meet future challenges in a different way. And that’s why it’s important and I actually have a great confidence in this argument. I think the more the argument has gone on, the more people have seen that this is a bold reform, yes, but also an important one and a right one. And there’s no point in doing the job unless you carry these things through, and that’s why we will do it.

QUESTION:

Where would you go? You say there’s no point in doing the job if you can’t do these things. Would you go if the Party say we are not prepared to do it? We don’t share your view.

PRIME MINISTER:

I think I’ve often said that it is not intelligent really to speculate on what might happen, but I believe that we will win the vote. There’s a lot still to do mind you, but I believe that we will win it.

QUESTION:

What do you say today to Samantha Roberts, whose husband was killed serving in Iraq after he had been told to hand over his body armour, after he had complained that he was going into battle without the correct equipment? He believed, and she clearly believes, that British soldiers like her husband were going to fight in Iraq without the proper equipment. Is she right, and if she is, should Geoff Hoon resign?

PRIME MINISTER:
First of all let me express my sympathy and condolences to Mrs Roberts and to say to you I totally understand the concerns that she has expressed. As you will know, there is an inquiry being conducted now by the Ministry of Defence and I know that they are keeping Mrs Roberts closely in touch with the process of that inquiry, and of course they will with the outcome as well. And when we have all the facts before us then I think we can comment on it.

QUESTION:

I know that if I ask you about the substance of the Hutton Inquiry you will say wait for the report to be published.

PRIME MINISTER:

Or indeed the process.

QUESTION:

I think, if I may, there are some important questions on the process. The first is that the whole question what you said to us on the plane, bearing in mind that you are telling everyone else not to comment on the Hutton Inquiry until it is published, do you accept that in principle you were wrong to make that categorical denial on the plane, whether it was true or not? The second question is you said at a previous one of these news conferences that after the Hutton Inquiry was published that would be the opportunity then for us to question you on what it contained. Will you give us a guarantee that you will hold this next news conference within a week or the publication of the Hutton Report? And thirdly, the whole question of other people getting access to the Hutton Report under embargo. In the interests of equity, will you join in the various appeals being made to Lord Hutton to allow the press and the opposition limited pre-access to the report before it is published so that spin operations don’t dominate?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think it is important first of all that we wait for Lord Hutton’s Report and then people can make their judgments, not on the basis, to put it frankly, of speculation by parts of the media or party politics on any side, but actually on the basis of the facts that the judge finds. We should await the outcome of that. As for the process, I think that is entirely a matter for the judge and I am content to let him do that, and I think it is right that he does do it.

QUESTION:
Why is it different from Scott then?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well for the very reason that I have just given you, that I think the judge should be allowed to decide these things and we would be very happy to abide by whatever decisions he takes.

QUESTION:

But you objected the last time round.

PRIME MINISTER:

Well let’s wait and see what actually happens Adam before we criticise. I think the most important thing with this is to understand that we set up this inquiry, I actually set up the inquiry with an independent judge because I thought it was important that the public be given the facts, not speculation by this part of the media, or that part of the media, or as a game of party politics, but actually the facts, and I think he should be allowed to make his judgment and I am not going to comment further on it until he makes his judgment.

QUESTION:

If I can turn to another subject and ask for your views on the current status of European integration. Europe can’t agree on a constitution, Europe is split down the middle on Iraq, France and Germany are flouting budget limits, there is talk of a two speed Europe. What is going on? Has integration run out of steam?

PRIME MINISTER:

I don’t think that the process of European cooperation has run out of steam at all because Europe is expanding to 25 and there is still an awful lot that Europe can do, and you just had recently agreements reached on European defence that are very important. But there are tricky issues to resolve in respect of the constitution I don’t think it is any surprise that it is taking time to resolve. My own judgment about this is that of course we have to resolve these constitutional questions, but it is also important to have a forward political programme for Europe that demonstrates to the European citizen what Europe at its best should be about, which is better jobs, better economic performance, higher living standards, improved security for our citizens. And that is why part of the discussions that I will be having, not just with France and Germany but with others in the weeks to come will be focusing of course on how you resolve some of these outstanding constitutional issues, but also will focus on how we make Europe genuinely more relevant to the citizens of Europe, and that I think is the biggest task that we face.

QUESTION:

You say there is an agreement on European defence, but Germany has just planned to slash its defence budget.

PRIME MINISTER:

Well it is for countries to decide their defence budget, and we are increasing ours here, as you know. But I think there are two quite separate issues: one is the overall level of defence spending, but the other is frankly how efficient is the defence capability that we have for the money we spend in Europe, and even within existing defence spending there are many, many efficiencies that I think could be got into the system. Now without me commenting on German defence or anyone’s defence, but if you look around Europe and see the number of troops that are actually able to conduct and mount effective operations, certainly fighting operations, they would be a lot less, a lot fewer than the numbers in uniform. So I think there are issues there that are very important too.

QUESTION:

Returning to fees, Ron Dearing last week estimated that the funding gap between what is raised from general taxation and what the universities say they need has now risen to £11 billion. If I understand it correctly, and I think Charles Clarke accepted that figure, the new proposals will raise about £1 billion, where are the other £10 billion going to come from?

PRIME MINISTER:

You can argue about where the funding gap is going to be over the years to come as you expand student numbers, but what we can for a certainty say at this point is that universities under our proposals will be able to increase funding per student by about 30%, and you can see from the chart I put up earlier, that will be the first effective increasing in funding per student for many, many years. Now there is all sorts of speculation on funding shortfalls, there is an infrastructure backlog that has to be improved, but that can be done over time. The most important thing however is to get in place a system that allows the universities to know that they are going to be able to increase significantly the amount of funding available to students.

QUESTION:

And increase their fees, after the end of the next parliament …

PRIME MINISTER:

We have made two things very clear, James, on this. The first is that these fee levels are maintained for the next parliament; but secondly, and more important than anything else, that there will be no increase in fees without explicit parliamentary authorisation. So I think that is very, very important.

QUESTION:

Can I ask in the wake of the Kilroy affair, do you share the growing public concern about the erosion of freedom of speech? Is investigating Mr Kilroy Silk really a sensible use of police time? Is the government still wedded to the notion of a poll tax as the best way to fund the BBC, and does not such a funding system place a duty on the corporation to incorporate a wide array of views?

PRIME MINISTER:

Mark, would you like to answer that one on behalf of the BBC? Look I think it is important that obviously people take care in what they say, but it is important to have freedom of speech as well, and I think people can work out in their own minds what the balance of those things should be, and I think this is one controversy, if you don’t mind, that I will not enter into. And as for the BBC’s future, that is being looked at under the discussions of the BBC Charter and that will happen on the basis of what is good, not for the BBC simply, but for the public as well. So make what you will of that one.

QUESTION:

Will Gordon Brown make a good Prime Minister?

PRIME MINISTER:

For God’s sake, Nick. You have been sitting there thinking about this all the way through. I have been through these questions and those types of questions so many different times and I think at the moment if you will just let me get on with the job.

QUESTION:

Can I ask you one on tuition fees now?

PRIME MINISTER:

You can ask me one on tuition fees, Nick, as a reward for the ingenuity of your first question.

QUESTION:

I just wanted to give you a chance to give a better answer.

PRIME MINISTER:

Which I failed to take the opportunity of, but never mind.

QUESTION:

We will both go to the back of the class. You have just given once again a promise that the cap on tuition fees won’t be raised. Given people heard you promise that tuition fees wouldn’t be introduced at all when they read your manifesto, wouldn’t they be wise to be a little suspicious about that promise?

PRIME MINISTER:

First of all just let me make it clear, we will not have this new system in this parliament, this new system will be in the next parliament. Now I agree we are legislating to do it, but an election comes inbetween. And secondly, and this is very important to emphasise, what was being talked about was the idea of variable fees in the existing fees system. What we are introducing now is a graduate repayment system in place of university fees paid as you go through college. Now in any event the legislation will have in that legislation a clause expressly making it clear that raising fees has to be done by parliamentary approval, and that is why I think and hope and believe people will accept that.

QUESTION:

But MPs hearing you know that the people who persuaded you of the case for increasing fees simply don’t believe in this £3,000 cap. Every single one of them says it will have to be lifted and it will be lifted. So people will be deeply suspicious that in your heart you know it will have to be lifted too.

PRIME MINISTER:

No, because I think that what has happened is that we have introduced a system, it is not true that everyone has been saying to us you have got to lift the cap and have no cap at all. You look around the world today at the other systems I am comparing us with, in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, there are often caps in those countries too, I think I am right in saying that all of those three countries have a cap on it. And it is not true to say that all universities have told us to have no cap, some of them have been very, very specific they would want one. And what I am saying to you is that we have set this for the foreseeable future, and remember this system doesn’t even come into effect until after the next election, but it is also the case that we will be making it clear in the legislation that it needs explicit parliamentary approval, and I think and hope that that is enough for people. And the reason why it has been important to deal with this is because unless we give the universities some clear certainty about the system that is coming forward in years to come, they can’t plan for it, and in the end the important thing is to do the right thing for the country. And I hope people understand that the system we are putting forward is not simply “top-up fees”, it is a different system altogether, it has completely different elements from the system we have in place at the moment.

QUESTION:

But some of those potential rebels, and indeed some people who like the policy, say part of the problem is what is happening now. Two weeks away from the vote and you are intensively explaining it that concessions are being made, and they feel this was a policy dropped on them from Downing Street without going through the proper procedure. Do you think mistakes were made?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well you can always look at how you present these things better, although my experience of these difficult reform issues is that they always begin with a difficult context, and then you have to get into the argument, and then as the argument unfolds people start to get persuaded. And certainly the MPs I have talked to in the past few days are increasingly saying well actually now that we see the whole package we do understand that it is not a bad package, on the other hand we have said that we are going to vote against it, so they are looking for a way to get out of that situation. But it is very important as well to recognise, sometimes I read that we have made concessions to get this package through. We have made no concessions. The package of student support is right in its own interest and right, it is not right simply because it helps to get the package through. I think it is important that we reintroduce support for poorer students, and it is important that we relieve all families of the burden of finding money for university education as their children go through college. And the fact is if you are a middle income family, so you don’t qualify as a poorer family that gets the support, if you are a middle income family in middle Britain and you have got one, perhaps two children going through university at the same time, at the moment you are having to find over a three year period maybe £6,500 out of taxed income to get your child through university. That is a lot of money to people on incomes that are actually still …

QUESTION:

It was your decision originally, the upfront fees?

PRIME MINISTER:

Of course, I totally agree with that, and the fact is we would have been unable even to sustain universities in the position they are in unless we had taken that decision. That is why, remember how this all began, it didn’t begin under this government actually, it is a programme of change that has been going on for probably 15 – 20 years because people have recognised that more and more people will go to university, we first of all then had maintenance loans introduced by the previous government. Then you had before the 1997 election an understanding that universities were in dire trouble still, so Ron Dearing was then commissioned to do his report with cross-party support at the time. He came forward and said you are going to have to introduce tuition fees, and so we did and we were the government that did that. But I said straight after the last election, I said that one of the things that did impress me and worry me on the doorstep was people saying to me if you are from, you know not a poor income but a middle income family, it is a lot of money to find out of your taxed income to put your children through university. And that is where we came, not arising out of a few people in Downing Street, we came to the conclusion that we were best to move to a situation where you don’t have to pay any fees going through university but the graduate makes a repayment afterwards. And when you look round the world and see the countries doing best in higher education – Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States of America – this is the system, with variants, that they have got and that is why we have done it.

QUESTION:

You met with Mariano Rajoy on Tuesday and you told him that you were prepared to continue conversations about Gibraltar after if Party au Popular came back to victory. That has caused a lot of excitement in Spain because people understand that you are committed to restarting conversations that are “dead” since the summer of 2002. Can you confirm that please?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well they have never been dead at all. We have continued to discuss the issues relating to Gibraltar, it obviously forms part of the conversations I have had with President Aznar over the past few months. But it is important that we carry on – Britain and Spain – trying to reach agreements that of course in the end have to be subject to the consent of the people of Gibraltar, but it is important that we carry on trying to reach agreement on this issue because I think that relations between Britain and Spain are immensely important and we need to do everything we can to try and resolve this in a sensible way. And therefore what I said to Mr Rajoy is exactly what I have said to President Aznar, and that situation will continue.

QUESTION:

To return to the death of Sergeant Steve Roberts, looking back to this time last year when you were sending troops to fight in Iraq, did you know, or did Geoff Hoon know then that there were some of them facing problems they characterised as disgraceful over the kit? And now do you accept or agree with that that indeed those problems were, to use Sergeant Roberts’ words, disgraceful?

PRIME MINISTER:

We have to wait for this inquiry to report to the MOD because they are looking into the specific case. I know it is unsatisfactory in a sense to have to say this, but it nonetheless is really the only proper thing to do. And in a situation like this, particularly when someone has died in circumstances where there is this issue over whether they had the proper equipment or not, I would prefer to make a comment to you once we get the report back from the inquiry.

QUESTION:

Gerry Adams is saying this lunchtime that he believes the forthcoming review will end in a stalemate, and he is talking about the government taking the initiative and bringing about some other process outside the review to break the deadlock. Is that viable? And secondly, could I ask you, considering that we now know that Judge Corrie has recommended four inquiries into his findings, when do you intend to publish the Corrie Report and what sort of inquiry do you eventually envisage considering the considerable cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry?

PRIME MINISTER:

On the issues to do with Corrie, we will publish it as soon as the outstanding legal issues are resolved and then we can make decisions about inquiries and the nature of them at that stage. In respect of the first point, well I hope everyone goes into the review with the idea of making it work. But let’s be quite clear what the two issues are going to be. The two issues are going to be: one, is it clear that on behalf of the Unionist majority there is a willingness in principle to share power and to work in the executive, together with all parties that are abiding by the Belfast Agreement; and two, in respect of the Republican Party – Sinn Fein – is there a clear understanding that we cannot have a situation where any party that is in government is associated with active paramilitary organisations. Now those are the two issues that the review has got to resolve, and I hope that rather than people predicting there is going to be a stalemate, that on the Unionist side they go in resolved to share power provided everyone is in accordance with the Good Friday agreement, and on the other side, the Sinn Fein side, a recognition that we do have to be clear that peaceful and democratic means is what is going to be used.

QUESTION:

It is 13 months since your speech in Belfast at the Harbour Commission and we are still waiting on these acts of completion.

PRIME MINISTER:

Yes, exactly.

QUESTION:

How long? Do you go ahead without Sinn Fein? It is hard. The Irish government are saying that they wouldn’t have Sinn Fein in government at the moment because of paramilitary activity. Is it fair, for example, they ask the DUP to go into government, into executive with Sinn Fein in the same circumstances?

PRIME MINISTER:

That is precisely the reason, the reason why we have been in this position for the past 15 months is because we haven’t had the acts of completion. And the reason why the executive was not up and running at the time of the Assembly elections is because it was impossible to satisfy, not just Unionism I have to say but a broader swathe of opinion than that, that all paramilitary organisation and activity had ceased. And we cannot have a situation where people are expected to sit in government with political parties attached to active paramilitary organisations. When people say to me, well you said people wouldn’t be in government if they were linked to active paramilitary organisations, that is precisely the reason we have not had a functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland, because we have not been satisfied about that. Now on the other hand I do believe that the Sinn Fein leadership are committed to making this process work, I do believe they have come a very, very long way, but we have got to have no ambiguity about it. What I said 15 months ago I repeat now, there was a time when ambiguity in Northern Ireland was our friend, a necessary friend. It is now the enemy, an opponent of this process working. It has got to be clear, you cannot expect after five and a half years of the Good Friday agreement, you cannot expect people to sit down in government unless they are all playing by the same rules, and there is no way round that.

QUESTION:

To return to Europe for a moment, what is your reaction to Bertie Ahern when he says that any understanding on parts of the deal reached between EU leaders before the constitution talks collapsed in Brussels last December, any understanding that you had of a deal is now irrelevant and that all those so-called red line issues, like foreign policy, taxation and defence, that you thought you had some agreement on, will go back into the melting pot if the Irish EU Presidency can get the talks going again?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think people are making a little bit more of this than need be. It is a statement of fact, as we said at the time, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. But on the other hand, the fact that there was a summing up by the previous Presidency that indicated that areas like foreign policy, and tax and defence should remain intergovernmental, unanimous, I think is very persuasive and obviously our position remains the same. And I would be quite surprised if the broad understanding that we had before was overturned. But of course the Irish Presidency is absolutely right, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and the negotiation has to be agreed on all points and I wouldn’t expect them to say anything different from that.

QUESTION:

Could I take you back to the case of Sergeant Roberts and the inquiry, I know there is an inquiry. What his widow, Samantha, wants to know is a guarantee from you that this inquiry will be genuinely thorough-going, that if it finds that there were severe equipment shortages then there will be resignations at a high level. And isn’t there frankly already enough evidence to offer her not just your sympathy but an apology as well?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think really what I would say is this, that an inquiry has been appointed to look into this case. I am sure it is going to be a thorough inquiry and it is really for them to say what has happened and to apportion blame out of it. And it is a question of wanting to wait until we have that before I start not simply prejudging it, but maybe saying things that the inquiry says aren’t actually the case. So I think it is best that we do it in the way I have described, really.

QUESTION:

Yesterday at Prime Minister’s Questions you trumpeted the latest fall in national levels of unemployment, when at the same time regional unemployment in the north east has risen yet again, and today we have had confirmation by Samsung on Teeside, that it is to close its plant with a loss of 425 jobs. What is your reaction to the Samsung decision and the wider problems facing manufacturing in regions like the north east?

PRIME MINISTER:

First of all, Gerry, I deeply regret the loss of jobs at Samsung, this will have an impact on my constituency and others in the area, and Samsung employment was good employment, skilled employment, and we can badly afford to lose it. What I would say is, as we did when Fujitsu closed some years ago, we will work with the company and with the employees concerned to make sure that they will get other job opportunities. And I am pleased to say that Fujitsu a few years ago, and actually to an extent in Siemens, that was achieved, and that this a part I am afraid of the world economy in which we live. We are lucky that in this country we have some I think 130 Korean companies operating, we have a third of all European Union investment, Korean European Union investment here in Britain, but there will be occasions when companies will close plants. The only honest way of spelling this out to people is that we remain ready then to help them get new jobs, but this is part of a series of changes happening in the economy the world over. And it is true that there has been I think a rise in the claimant count in the north east, but overall unemployment is way down from where it was a few years ago, and I think as the economy picks back up again, and there are significant signs that it is, then the outlook will be better.

QUESTION:

Scottish universities are increasingly concerned that your plans for England and Wales are going to have a detrimental effect on Scottish education, and today Peter Hain, your Cabinet colleague, has said that devolution is detrimental to the Scottish economy. Have you abdicated all responsibility for Scotland, and if not what are you doing to address the concerns of the universities in Scotland, the economy in Scotland and people in Scotland that actually voted for you as their Prime Minister?

PRIME MINISTER:

They also voted for devolution, Catherine, and people in Scotland wanted devolution, and it is important that we maintain devolution. Actually the Scottish economy has done extremely well over the past few years and there are problems there as there are in any other part of the UK, but I certainly wouldn’t want to disturb the devolution settlement, on the contrary I think what has happened with devolution is that whereas in 1997 we were warned that would lead to the break-up of the UK, the opposite has happened, nationalism is on the defensive and actually devolution on the whole has worked well. There will be an impact of course. University finance is an area where there is bound to be an impact between what happens in Scotland and what happens in England, and it is an interesting reflection actually of in a sense the generosity of the package that we are putting forward for universities here that people, whereas a few years ago were saying well the Scottish system was better than the English system, those arguments are turning round. But I think in the end devolution works precisely because there is an element of diversity there and I don’t think that is a bad thing at all and I wouldn’t want to disturb it.

QUESTION:

Having just come back from Israel, there is incredulity in Israel at the fact that the Syrians have yet to recognise the new changed order in the Middle East. I know the British government, amongst others, have been attempting to persuade the Syrian government to face new realities, but there is still sponsorship of terrorism within Israel itself, there is still a flow of weaponry going through from Iran to Israel to the terrorist groups, and there are the overtures which have been made by Israel in recent days to renew the peace process. Nothing has been done, what can be done?

PRIME MINISTER:

The only thing that can be done is to restart the process, but after key security steps are taken to limit terrorism insofar as it is possible to do so, and to have a sufficiently robust security plan for the Palestinian authority that will allow not just Israel but the outside world to judge that every effort is being made to suppress terrorism. But as you know, I have been critical of certain aspects of Israeli policy, but I do honestly believe that it is impossible to get this process restarted unless there is a credible security plan that allows people to believe genuinely that every attempt is being made to stop the support of terrorism, the flow of terrorists into either the Palestinian Authority or into Israel, and to give a clear message that terrorism is the enemy of progress for the Palestinian people. And that is just so obvious, and what you see right round the world at the moment is that I think there was an argument that terrorists mounted that used to have some support within certain sections of the community, it is not one I ever agreed with myself, but terrorists used to say look without the terrorism people will never listen to our argument. There was something of that that used to go on in Northern Ireland too. In today’s world, particularly post-11September, terrorism is the obstacle to political progress, and it is the obstacle to political progress whether it is in Northern Ireland, or it is in the Middle East, or it is out in Kashmir, or it’s in Chechnya, or it is any of the difficult trouble-spots of the world. And that is why, you ask what can be done, the only thing that can be done is get a sufficiently robust security plan under way that allows people to say not that all terrorism is going to stop, but that everything possible is being done to stop it and that states that have got an ambivalent attitude towards sponsoring terrorism are states that are way out of line with the rest of the international order.

QUESTION:

What about the Syrian dimension though?

PRIME MINISTER:

It is important, as we have always said, that Syria understands its international responsibilities and keeps to them.

QUESTION:

The government set a target four years ago in GCSE results that no school should be spending more than 1 in 5 of its pupils out into the world with fewer than 5 good GCSEs. The tables of results published today suggest that there are still 135 schools in that position and that the target looks now likely to be missed. Is it a mistake to be setting targets that then get missed? And isn’t it a case that tens of thousands of children particularly in inner cities in inner London are being let down by schools with low standards?

PRIME MINISTER:

It is not a mistake to set targets. I think it is entirely sensible to set targets. I hope we will meet these targets incidentally. But without setting targets I think it would be a lot harder to raise standards. Now you have got to have not too many of them, they have got to be sensibly worked out in line with people in the particular professions operating in a particular area. But let’s be quite clear about this, there has been in London significant improvement in some of the worst schools. If you look at London’s secondary schools there has been very substantial improvement in many of those schools, but we need to do far more. But I don’t apologise for setting targets, I think it is important because they keep the system up to the mark and they make people focus on raising standards. And you know sometimes people say well it is a scandal, you have got 25% of 11 year olds in this country who still don’t pass their literacy and numeracy tests. I agree, we have got to get those figures down, but when we came to office it was almost 50% that didn’t. And the numbers of failing schools have been round about halved. Now I think as we develop specialist schools and the city academies which will be very, very important in London and are already massively over-subscribed, we will get to the right set of reforms and changes along with the investment that will make a difference. But I think we have got to carry on very much focusing on raising standards and I think that if you look at today’s secondary school tables, yes we have got very challenging targets to meet, but what is beyond doubt is that there is improvement now happening year on year and the fastest improvement has been with some of the schools that were the worst performers a few years ago.

QUESTION:

Your government has been silent as the pound hit a 12 year high against the dollar. Do you share the concerns of the German Chancellor and the French Prime Minister that the strength of the euro, the weakness of the dollar, is going to hurt industry and the economy here in Europe? Or are you in the Alan Greenspan camp expressing optimism that it will be no problem?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well I am certainly in the camp that says that so far as Prime Ministers speculating on the levels of the currency, it never seems to be a great idea. And I think in the end the most important economic issue – this is not the answer you really want from me, but the answer I will give – I think the most important economic issue for us here in Europe is economic reform, to be honest, and I think the currency will vary according to market perceptions, but the most important thing for us to do as a group of countries in Europe is to concentrate on becoming highly competitive vis the outside world, and that means taking seriously economic reform.

QUESTION:

I want to ask you about the Delivery Summit tomorrow, no doubt an opportunity for you to give some lovely more powerpoint presentations. Which area of delivery are you personally most disappointed by? I don’t think the Transport Secretary is going, is he?

PRIME MINISTER:

The Transport Secretary I will be seeing next week, and this is an opportunity for us to review the plans that are being drawn up by departments for the forward programme. Obviously the problems of transport are clear, which are partly to do with the aftermath of rail privatisation, under-investment in the infrastructure, and to do with the fact that all that has happened at the same time as you have had a massive increase in usage. So the transport problems are very particular and of course we would have wanted more progress, but there have been very particular reasons for the difficulties there. In respect of the other areas, I do say to you we now have a situation where in the National Health Service there is not a single national indicator that is not in a better place than in 1997. Cancer and cardiac services are probably the fastest improving in Europe with cancer deaths down by 9% and cardiac by almost 20%. We have in our school system, as you see from today, specialist schools but also schools generally performing far better than they did 7 years ago, and crime according to the British Crime Survey is down, not up. Now that is not to say there aren’t still big problems, but I think there are also big changes happening. And I will just tell you I had a meeting on the criminal justice system the other day when several of the practitioners were telling me that for the first time in years they actually felt the system was starting to work together properly. And so I think there is a long way to go, but we are further ahead than sometimes we are given credit for.

QUESTION:

I asked you which ones you were personally disappointed by, not …

PRIME MINISTER:

I know you did, and I answered about transport first, didn’t I, and explained the reasons why there wasn’t as much progress as we would like to see. But I think in the interests of balance and fairness, whether you would like me to or not, I would also like to say that there are areas where we have made significant progress too, and actually there are areas of transport where that is the case. The Channel Tunnel rail link is one very obvious example.

QUESTION:

Almost 600 pensioners in Devon and Cornwall are refusing to pay council tax because of the levels, they say it is too high. They could well be demonstrating on Saturday. What is your message and how concerned are you about this grass roots revolt in the south-west?

PRIME MINISTER:

We are concerned about levels of council tax last year. The average rise was about 13% and it is difficult to justify that in circumstances where government is actually increasing its support centrally to local government. This year we have made available even more cash and we have lifted some of the ring fencing, which should make it easier for local authorities, and there really is no justification for high council tax rises, absolutely no justification at all. Now in the end central government doesn’t set the council tax, but we have made it clear we are prepared to use capping powers if necessary if there are unreasonably high levels, and I hope that local authorities, given more money from central government, will listen to the concerns of pensioners and others, and I do understand the problem that you have if you are a pensioner and a big rise in council tax takes away the rise in your basic state pension. I understand that, it is precisely for that reason, because we listened to that, that we took the measures that we did.

QUESTION:

I would like to ask two questions. The Syrian President called last month for starting again negotiation with Israel, and now the Israelis are calling for the same thing. However at the same time the government of Sharon announced something very provocative, which is the expansion of Jewish settlements in the Golan Heights which is going to be a big problem. What do you think of this issue? And the second one is about the British soldiers in southern Iraq, they have been a model for taking care of the security issues there, but lately they have been reacting quite a little bit more like the Americans in the Sunni triangle. Are there changes in the rules of engagement in that area?

PRIME MINISTER:

No, there are no changes at all, but it is important that the troops keep order. And I would just emphasise to you that the demonstrators are a small minority of the local Iraqi population. Now they now have the freedom to demonstrate, they never had it under Saddam but they have got it now, but from my experience in Basra a few days ago, I can assure you I think there are very significant improvements to the living standards of Iraqi people down in the south. Where there are particular issues that people are worried about, we have to take care of them, but in the meantime it is important that we do keep order. And I was just hearing a report this morning actually that Jack Straw gave to Cabinet that a lot of local Iraqis feel very strongly that the British troops should maintain order and that people of course can demonstrate that that does not mean to say those demonstrations, if they become violent, should not be properly dealt with, and I think you will find that that is probably supported by most of the Iraqi people down in the south. And certainly I can tell you that all the Iraqis that I spoke to when I was in the southern part of Iraq were fully behind the efforts to rebuild their country, they want us to go as soon as it is right and safe to do so, so that they run their own country, they want to run their own country, but we are going to make sure they get the chance to do that with some stability and prosperity and democracy. In respect of the first thing, I think the only thing I would say to you about this is that obviously I would welcome any attempt to restart negotiations in any of the tracks of the peace process, but I think it is better if you allow me to let the parties try and resolve their differences without entering into that particular argument.