| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Human Trafficking
Q5. [86178] Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): For what reasons the Government has not ratified the Council of Europe Convention against human trafficking.
The Prime Minister: The UK Government are currently considering the Council of Europe convention against human trafficking agreed last year. At present only one country, Moldova, has ratified that convention, but let me be clear that we are determined to tackle human trafficking. The police have set up the UK Human Trafficking Centre to continue the fight against that crime, and Operation Pentameter resulted in over 150 arrests and the rescue of 75 trafficking victims.
Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the Prime Minister. Thirty of the 45 Council of Europe countries have signed the convention, but we have not done so. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), and his officials said in the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the fear of “a pull factor” was preventing the UK Government from signing the convention. But is the Prime Minister aware that in Italy there is no evidence of a pull factor, and a hundred times as many women have been saved and there have been a hundred times as many prosecutions? Will he reflect again for the sake of the victims of trafficking, and allow the UK to sign the convention?
The Prime Minister: I will reflect again. The hon. Gentleman rightly puts his finger on the reason for our refusal to sign and ratify the convention so far. An absolute 30-day reflection period is required for victims who are here without leave, to enable them to recover from the experience that they have been through. Our worry is that, unless we are very careful about the way in which that is implemented, it will cause a major problem with people who come here under the auspices of organised crime and are not proper asylum seekers, as we would be obliged to keep them for a fixed period. I am afraid we have to examine what that means in practice for our system before we can agree the convention.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): Last week, the Prime Minister agreed to meet a delegation led by myself on the issue. There is widespread support in the House for the signing—not ratification, which is different—of the convention, as well as widespread support among the police, Anti-Slavery International and Amnesty International. I would rather not meet him, because I do not want to discuss a problem. I would rather that the Home Office provided a solution without too much time passing.
The Prime Minister: I entirely understand what my right hon. Friend is saying, and he made his point in a very reasonable way. I will look at the issue again, but we need an answer on that point. It is not only Britain that has not signed the convention—countries such as Spain have not done so because they, too, are worried about the same problem. However, if we can find a way around it—and we may be able to do so—that would obviously allow us to sign.
Engagements
Q6. [86179] Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): Is the Prime Minister aware that the British Sugar factory in York will close in January or February next year, leading to a large number of job losses in the city? More particularly, it will cause a loss of earnings for farmers in North Yorkshire. Will he agree to meet some of the sugar beet growers in North Yorkshire to see whether there is a way forward, perhaps by developing sugar beet into bioethanol? He will appreciate that sugar beet has had a great influence as a rotation crop and on the environment, so it would be a body blow to local farmers to lose it.
The Prime Minister: I am happy to meet the hon. Lady. I am aware of the fact that there is an important potential for sugar beet and biofuel, but I cannot offer any assurances. I obviously sympathise with her constituents’ plight, but I would have to see whether there is anything that Government can do, and there may not be.
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes) (Lab): What advice would my right hon. Friend give a Member of Parliament who voted against the introduction of two weeks’ paid paternity leave, who voted against extending maternity leave to 26 weeks, and who voted against the request for flexible working? Would that advice include the words, “On your bike, Dave”?
The Prime Minister: I think that, if that was not just one offence but a serial offence of changing one’s mind, I would advise them not to open their leadership campaign by saying that consistency is a vital thing in politics.
Q7. [86180] Mr. John Maples (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): May I urge the Prime Minister to find time in his busy day to rethink his holiday plans? I do not know which Italian palazzo he has lined up this year, but may I commend to him the benefits of a holiday in the United Kingdom? One of the benefits for the rest of us, of course, is the fact that he would not have to leave the Deputy Prime Minister in charge. If the Italian palazzo has a croquet lawn and a diary secretary, however, perhaps they could cut a deal.
The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very helpful advice.
Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): My right hon. Friend will be aware of our policy on the renewable transport fuels obligation, which will ensure that 5 per cent. of fuels are biofuels. A million tonnes of carbon will be prevented from entering the atmosphere every year, which is the equivalent of a million cars coming off the road. Is it not true that the Government have done a tremendous amount on climate change, and will continue to do so in future?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have done a great deal to tackle the issue. Unfortunately, we need to do a lot more, which was the purpose of the energy review. One vital part of reducing carbon output is the climate change levy, which has been and will be responsible for carbon emissions into our atmosphere being reduced by millions of tonnes. The energy review gives us a sound way forward—a proper policy basis for planning for the future of this country. The interesting thing about the G8 summit is that what we had in the British energy review is four-square behind the thinking of the leading countries of the world.
Q8. [86181] Mr. Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): I know that the Prime Minister is a big supporter of the tourist industry. Has he considered taking his holiday this year in Scarborough? I am sure he will be interested to know that many people who visit Scarborough as tourists subsequently decide to make it their permanent retirement home.
The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful suggestion. One of the advantages would be bumping into him in the course of my holiday. I intend to have a good holiday, and I wish him one too.
Q9. [86182] Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Blyth Valley council’s excellent antisocial behaviour team, which is led by Ian Johnson and supported by the local police? Although the people responsible for antisocial behaviour are only a small minority in Blyth Valley, we do not hug them. We deal with them.
The Prime Minister: I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was about to add to the holiday suggestions. He is right. Although there is a great deal more to do on antisocial behaviour, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will say, none the less antisocial behaviour legislation, where used by local authorities and the police, has had a major impact in local communities and we will strengthen the law still further. There are those who used to describe it as a gimmick, but it is not a gimmick. It is a vital part of making our communities safer.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): The Prime Minister will know of the widespread disappointment at the failure of the United Nations review conference in New York a fortnight ago to agree principles on the transfer of light weapons and arms, even though 150 countries supported that. Can we rely on the UK Government to adhere to their manifesto commitment to challenge the few Governments who continue to block the process?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We have pushed the matter very hard for a considerable time, but as his question implies, it is not simply us—it is the whole of the international community that must agree the process. We fully support it and will continue to encourage others to support it.
Q10. [86184] Charlotte Atkins (Staffordshire, Moorlands) (Lab): My two Sure Start schemes and my two children’s centres are transforming the lives of the most vulnerable children in my constituency, but can my right hon. Friend give me assurances about their future funding?
The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to fund Sure Start and children’s centres. She is right to say that they perform a vital task in many communities. I know that the Sure Starts in my own community have been immensely popular. About 800,000 people are benefiting from the programmes, and the great thing about Sure Start is not merely the help that it gives to the children, but the help that it gives to the parents. It has had a very great benefit in many constituencies, and we will certainly continue to support it.
Q11.
[86185]
Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): Local people in my
area want to know what they have done to deserve Government-appointed
trust members and managers who are slashing services, sacking staff,
closing wards and compromising clinical safety. As the Prime Minister
is in a meeting mood, will he agree to meet a delegation of patients
and clinicians from my
constituency to explore the serious challenges behind an extremely
serious
situation?
The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman will continue to make representations on the matter, but I point out to him that it is not a question of management and people being appointed to the board. It is a question of ensuring that however much money we put into the national health service—we have put in vast additional sums that have reduced waiting times, reduced waiting lists, reduced waits for treatment such as cardiac care, and made sure that we are cutting the number of people dying from diseases such as cancer and heart disease—although it has had a huge impact, every single trust has to live within its means. Sometimes trusts have to reconfigure services, but I do not believe that they will do so to the detriment of clinical management, clinical care or patient care in communities.
Q12. [86186] Mr. Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West) (Lab/Co-op): My right hon. Friend has often said that it is essential to be at the centre of decision making in Europe. Will he tell me his assessment of the effectiveness of the current political groupings in representing Britain’s interests in Europe?
The Prime Minister: We will, of course, remain as part of the grouping of the centre left parties, and it is extremely important that the Conservative party also remains part of its grouping. I have a feeling that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has changed the Conservative party’s position, on which I congratulate him.
Business of the House
12.30 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for tomorrow will now be, first, a motion to approve the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2006. Then, in response to requests from both sides of the House, there will be a debate on international affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The debate on international development, which was due tomorrow, will now be scheduled for another date. I shall, of course, make my usual business statement tomorrow as well.
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con): I am grateful to the Leader of the House for acceding in his statement to the request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House to debate international affairs, particularly the growing problems in the middle east. Tomorrow we will have departmental questions, his normal business statement, the order that he has mentioned and, possibly, a statement by a Minister. Will he programme tomorrow’s business so that we can guarantee four hours for the international affairs debate?
Mr. Straw: I cannot formally programme the business, but we will do our best to ensure that it proceeds as quickly as possible. The order is down for a maximum of an hour and a half, but, frankly, it is not particularly controversial. Two organisations connected with Omar Bakri Mohammad are to be proscribed. The case for proscribing the first organisation, the Baluchistan Liberation Army, speaks for itself. The second organisation, the TAK, is a Turkish terrorist organisation that has admitted to carrying out terrorist outrages in Turkey. Provided that hon. Members are relatively brief, we should be able to proceed quickly.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I, too, thank the Leader of the House for providing an opportunity to debate foreign affairs, for which, as he knows, we have been asking for some time. Tomorrow’s debate will inevitably deal with the developing, and concerning, situation in the middle east. I repeat my other request in relation to foreign affairs, which is for a specific debate on Iraq. Tomorrow it will be two years to the day since the House last debated Iraq in Government time.
Mr.
Straw: Tomorrow’s debate is on international
affairs, so there will be every opportunity to discuss Iraq, and I have
no doubt that the matter will be raised. The need to schedule a foreign
affairs debate has raised an issue: it is eccentric that while some
debates are programmed in Government time each year, including five
debates on defence and a number of others at the
request of the House, other key areas, including international
development and foreign affairs, must take their chance in negotiations
through the usual channels. I hope to ask the Modernisation Committee,
which I chair, to re-examine how scheduled debates in Government time
are organised and which subjects are
debated.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Would it not be better to have a substantive debate on the situation in the middle east, rather than an Adjournment debate on international affairs? There is a widespread feeling on both sides of the House that the United Kingdom Government have abandoned their role as an honest broker and have become a client state of an American Administration who are failing to live up to their global responsibilities. A substantive debate would allow “Yo Blair” to develop some independence of mind and thought.
Mr. Straw: As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a small error, which is that when he speaks for himself he thinks that he is speaking for the whole House. It is appropriate for such an issue to be discussed on a motion for the Adjournment, so that debate can be very wide-ranging. None the less, I am up for there being more debates in Government time on substantive motions. Indeed, there have been two in recent weeks—one on the BBC and the other on the pensions White Paper. In many circumstances, that is appropriate. I am not in the least worried, and neither is my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, about having a debate on foreign policy on a substantive motion. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to use some of his Supply day time for a debate on that, let us see it.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): The great majority of Members will be extremely grateful to the Leader of the House for moving so quickly to ensure that there will be an Adjournment debate on international affairs tomorrow. Had there not been such a debate, our constituents would not have understood why we were going into recess next week without one. May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further? If, unfortunately, terrible events develop in the middle east during the recess, which might well involve our troops, can he give the House an assurance that it will be briefly recalled to debate those matters?
Mr. Straw: The question of the recall of Parliament is kept under active review by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by senior Ministers throughout the recess. I am not just using that as a formula. The right hon. Gentleman will know, because it is a matter of record, that the House has been recalled on three occasions in the past nine years—in 1998, 2001 and 2002. If it is necessary, and subject of course to consultation with you, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that it will be recalled.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |