| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): Does the Prime Minister believe that article 3 of the European convention on human rights should be amended so that the provisions of the Geneva convention can be complied with provisions that give the countries concerned the right to return refugees regarded as a danger to security?
The Prime Minister: Of course, that convention is not an issue to do with the European Union, as the hon. Gentleman will know, but I think it is important that we balance the right of those people who are genuine refugees who seek asylum in this country with the
interests of national security. That is one of the issues that we will be thinking about very carefully when we come to look at new laws in relation to terrorism.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that for every citizen in this country we want and need a European Union that works efficiently and effectively whether that is on jobs, terrorism, security or anything else and that the rule book is no longer up to the task? We need the new constitution to ensure, in an enlarged Europe, that the EU works for every man, woman and child in our country.
The Prime Minister: That is exactly why we need it.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con): Will the Prime Minister bear it in mind that many of us who strongly support his stand on terrorism and on giving the opportunity of democracy to the people of Iraq are concerned that he has set his face so firmly at this point against a referendum on the European constitution, although the issues are potentially far more significant than anything entailed in the Maastricht treaty, with the two opt-outs negotiated for Britain?
The Prime Minister: Quite simply, I disagree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman in relation to Maastricht and the Single European Act. Precisely the same points were made about the Amsterdam treaty back in 1997, when we were told that it would mean the end of Britain as a nation state and it meant no such thing.
Jane Griffiths (Reading, East) (Lab): May I congratulate the Prime Minister on going to Libya as he has done? As the UK's relations with Libya develop, as we all hope they will, may I ask him and his colleagues to listen to the voices of the Libyan exiled community in the UK, many of whom have worked over the years at BBC Monitoring in my constituency, providing information on that country?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a fair point.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Will the Prime Minister agree that it would be far better to delay legislation in the House until the results of the referendums in the free countries of Europe on this subject are known? Indeed, would it not be better to delay it until the general election, so that we can have a vote to sort it out? His journey might not then be necessary.
The Prime Minister: All that I can say is that the 10 new member states of the European Union are all proud
nations, many of which have effectively just achieved nationhood as a result of their liberation from old-style communist rule. It is extremely important to recognise that each one of those 10 countries is in favour of having this constitutional treaty. It is not true that a majority of countries are having referendums actually, a majority probably are not. What is important, however, is that we have this debate on the basis of what the treaty actually says. In the course of that debate, it is important that people such as the right hon. Gentleman whose view I respect in terms of it being very clear, but the fact is that he would renegotiate our essential terms of membership express their view. That debate is well worth having, but we can have it in the House.
James Purnell (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab): On the middle east and Libya, does the Prime Minister see a prospect of similar progress on Syria and Iran, which would be key to unlocking progress on the road map between the Palestinians and Israelis? Did he notice that the Leader of the Opposition barely even mentioned the middle east? Is that not symptomatic of his knee-jerk opposition to and obsession with Europe and all things European?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that the position of Syria and Iran will be important, particularly if we manage to restart some process to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It will be important that they co-operate fully, as they should be doing in any event, in stopping all sponsorship and help towards terrorist organisations. One thing that is for sure is that the single biggest obstacle at the moment to real movement on the middle east is the existence of those terrorist groups, financed and sponsored from abroad.
Mr. George Osborne (Tatton) (Con): How did the Prime Minister get on with Spanish Prime Minister-elect Zapatero? Has he convinced him that the Iraq war was not a war based on lies? Has he changed the rather unflattering and unrepeatable assessment of him by some of the Spanish Prime Minister-elect's closest advisers?
The Prime Minister: Probably not. There will be a disagreement between us and the new Spanish Government on Iraq. I believe that our position on Iraq was right, and in any event, whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict and the war, it must surely be the duty and the interest of every single one of our countries to make sure that we constitute Iraq as a proper, stable and democratic country. The Iraqi people are the last who want us to quit before the job is done.
Organised Crime
4.28 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on our strategy to tackle organised crime.
Although crime has fallen, a substantial challenge remains to turn round those aspects of criminality that threaten the very fabric of our society. The success of the police and other law enforcement agencies should not lead to complacency. We know that a great deal still needs to be done to tackle specific areas of criminality, including organised crime.
Organised crime is big business. It costs around £40 billion a year. Its effects are corrosive. It corrupts society and spreads fear and intimidation. It operates across frontiers and reaches into every neighbourhood, especially some of the most deprived parts of our country. Lives are destroyed by drugs, smuggling and prostitution. It is a major contributor to low-level crime, abuse and exploitation. It exploits every technique of modern technology. It uses identity theft, the internet and modern secure communications. Such criminals employ many of the same methods as those who run terrorist networks. Indeed, there is clear evidence that many terrorists seek to finance their activity through organised crime.
That means that, now more than ever, we need to make a step change in our response, so we are setting a clear objective of year-on-year reductions in the harm that organised crime causes the United Kingdom and its citizens. We will make the UK one of the most difficult environments in the world for organised crime, and we will work closely with our partners to undermine its international effects. Today's White Paper sets out our strategy to achieve those goals. We will create a powerful new agency, the serious organised crime agency. We will take new powers to disrupt activity and to convict those responsible, and we will enhance our capability to stay one step ahead.
Let me deal with those points in turn. I announced to the House last month our intention to create the agency, and since then we have consulted on how it should operate. It will bring together responsibilities that currently fall to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, the parts of the immigration service that deal with organised immigration, and the parts of Customs and Excise that deal with drug and people trafficking and related financial investigations. I pay clear tribute to the professionalism and dedication of the staff of those agencies, who have done such a good job over the years. The new agency will build on their success. It will bring together resources in a single organisation with a clear focus on drugs, people trafficking and financial crime. It will enable us to make more effective use of intelligence and to work more closely with specialist prosecutors. It will enable us to bring more criminals to justice and reduce the harm that they cause.
The White Paper describes how the new agency will operate. It will be a non-departmental public body with operational independence, overseen by a small strategic board accountable to Ministers for the delivery of priorities set out by them. It will be chaired by a part-
time non-executive, and will be led operationally by a full-time director general. We will advertise both posts shortly.We will legislate to bring the new agency into being as soon as parliamentary time allows, but in the meantime existing agencies will work together increasingly to share objectives and a common strategy. Thus we shall begin to see the practical benefits of change during the transitional period. The creation of the agency will give us an opportunity to consider how best to improve performance and co-ordination, especially in the securing of our borders.
We will ensure, Mr. Deputy Speaker [Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must always get my gender right on these occasions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |