时间：2006年5月17日下午
地点：英国议会下院
时段：Prime Minister’s Questions
事件：Tony Blair vs David Cameron。布莱尔答辩时，坐在卡梅伦旁边的保守党财政事物发言人George Osborne插嘴，结果遭到布莱尔深刻鄙视。
Mr. David Cameron (Witney) (Con): On behalf of the Opposition, may I add our sympathies to what the Prime Minister said about the soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq? Our thoughts should be with their families for what they have done on our behalf.
Two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that automatic deportation would apply to any foreign national
“convicted of an imprisonable offence”.—[ Official Report,3 May 2006; Vol. 445, c. 960.]
Last week he said it would apply to those actually imprisoned. This week the Home Secretary said that automatic deportation would now apply only to foreign nationals serving a “significant” jail term. Which is it?
The Prime Minister: It is exactly as I explained when I first answered the right hon. Gentleman. It applies only to people who have gone to prison, which is why we are talking about foreign prisoners. If, for example, someone is sent to prison for a very short space of time and they have been in this country for a long period of time, then the presumption of automatic deportation would not apply, but in the vast bulk of cases, as has been explained, there will be an automatic presumption to deport, and the vast bulk of those people will, indeed, be deported. In my view, those people should be deported, irrespective of any claim that they have that the country to which they are returning may not be safe. That is why it is important that we consider legislating, if necessary, to ensure that such an automatic presumption applies.
Mr. Cameron: We have gone from “all prisoners” to “all significant prisoners”, and now we have got the “vast bulk”—the Prime Minister is making it up as he goes along. That is an example of a Government in complete paralysis. Let me give him another example: he has said that the Human Rights Act 1998 has led to an abuse of common sense and that he will review it, and a few moments ago he said that perhaps the House of Commons will legislate. Three years ago, however, in January 2003, he announced a review of the operation of the Act—what happened to that review?
The Prime Minister: It was precisely because we believed it important to rebalance the system that we introduced, for example, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which allowed us to take money off those suspected of being involved in drug dealing. It was for precisely that reason that we introduced the antisocial behaviour legislation. And it was for precisely that reason that we introduced the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allowed us to impose mandatory minimum sentences on people carrying illegal firearms. What those things have in common is that the Conservative party either opposed them or refused to vote for them. Yes; we will make sure that our human rights legislation does not get in the way of commonsense legislation to protect our country. However, when we have tried to legislate to toughen up the law, the Liberal Democrats have opposed all the measures and the right hon. Gentleman has opposed most of them.
Mr. Cameron: We have been telling the Prime Minister about the problems with the Human Rights Act for years. He keeps announcing reviews, but nothing ever happens. I asked him about the 1998 Act, but he did not say a word about it, so let me give him another example of Government in paralysis. The head of the civil service has said that the immigrationand nationality directorate has been “performing particularly well”, yet the head of enforcement and removals at that directorate says that he has not got the faintest idea of how many people are in Britain illegally. When the head of enforcement and removals was asked how many illegal asylum seekers were not removed, he said that he did not know. When he was asked how many people have been told to leave the country by his department, he said that he simply could not say. Does the Prime Minister agree that after nine years in charge that is just unacceptable?
The Prime Minister:
“There are no official estimates of the number of illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom. By its very nature,illegal immigration is difficult to measure and any estimates would be highly speculative—[ Official Report, 20 April 1995;Vol. 258, c. 328.]
Mr. George Osborne (Tatton) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman is quoting Michael Howard.
The Prime Minister: Yes, exactly—Michael Howard.
Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman about the current situation in our asylum system: the number of unfounded claims is down; since 1997, the number of asylum seekers is down; all asylum seekers are now fingerprinted and issued with identity cards; and there are now three times as many removals as there were in 1997.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that it is necessary to control illegal immigration better, and there are two things that we need to do. First, we need to introduce electronic borders, which we have introduced for some 26 routes and which we need to roll out across the entire country. Secondly, we need identity cards both for foreign nationals and for British nationals. If we want to track people coming in and out of our country and to know the identity of people who are here,then that is what we have to do. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to support any of that. His spokesman has said that there have been 43 Criminal Justice Acts and that not one of them has done anything to help. Let me say what is in those Acts, including the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which the right hon. Gentleman voted against: the early removal scheme that would allow foreign national prisoners to be deported at the halfway point in their sentence; tougher sentences for murder and sexual and violent crimes; measures to tackle jury-nobbling; allowing hearsay evidence in court; a five-year minimum custodial sentence for unauthorised possession of firearms; and everything to do with antisocial behaviour. So when we introduce the next load of measures to help to deal with this problem, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will support them.
Mr. Cameron: I can sum up the Prime Minister’s performance in one word—rattled. If the problem is the system he has inherited rather than the Ministers he has put in place, why did he sack his Home Secretary last week? Whether it is deporting dangerous criminals, sorting out the mess of the Human Rights Act, or dealing with illegal immigration, this is a Government in paralysis. The Prime Minister made the criminal justice system a top priority, yet he said this week that it is the Department that is
“most distant from what reasonable people want”.
Why, after four Home Secretaries, 43 pieces of legislation, and nine years, should anyone believe that he is the right man to sort it out?
The Prime Minister: For the simple reason that, as I have just pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman in stating the facts on asylum and immigration and on the criminal justice legislation, there are changes that have made a real difference. But yes, I agree that we have to do much more. That is precisely why we need the new measures such as identity cards and border controls that allow us to do something about it.
If we are comparing records on crime, let me just say to the right hon. Gentleman that under this Government, according to the British crime survey, overall crime is down, domestic burglary and vehicle theft are down, and police numbers are at a record high. When he was in the Home Office and the Conservatives were in office, crime doubled. I do not say that we have got everything right—of course not; we have got to do far more. What I do say, however, is that every time the tough measures that the right hon. Gentleman goes out and tells the media he wants are introduced here, they are opposed by him and his party. Next time we introduce them, perhaps he will put his vote where his mouth is.
