This transcript is produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors.
Trying to balance freedom with security 3/10/01
In your speech you looked forward
to the recall of Parliament tomorrow
and there will be changes in the
extradition laws. Isn't there a danger
of rushing through these changes?
There is a danger which is why
we're taking our time in drafting that
legislation. The first bill I hope will be
in and through Parliament in November.
There are longer term measures will
take a little longer to both draft
and to bring through parliament,
and of course they will be open,
accountable, scrutinised and the
world will know about them, which
is a very different picture to
those we're fighting.
You talked about protecting the
majority against the minority but
you have to accord the minority the
same rights under law.
You have to protect and I acknowledge
the job of the judiciary over the
years is to protect the minority
from the overbearing power of the
mob, but we're not the mob. We are
elected, recallable parliament
accountable to the people and
removable. In that sense we've got
to have the right to demonstrate
that politics can make a difference.
That politics can rise to the
challenge of providing in a
democracy the protection of our
freedoms, whilst not removing them.
We can't rule out thought that there
may be a possibility that someone will
be sent back to be tortured?
I think that we've got to work our way
through a system where the balance
of common sense prevails, where we
don't send people back to regimes,
where we know that they will
immediately be put under torture or
executed, but we do where we know
that the open, democratic parliaments
they have, the system they are operating
are on a par with our own and that we
can justify ensuring they are brought
There's a particular case, the Algerian
pilot suspected of training the hijackers,
but how many cases do you think will
come into this category of the need for
I don't think we're talking about a very
large number of cases. But the wrong
signals that have been sent by extradition
taking five, in one case ten years, not
only brings our laws into ridicule but
brings our country into ridicule from
others, because other countries say
to us why on earth are you putting up
with the situation where we want
this person back, they've committed
a terrorist act, we want to put
them on trial and we can't get them
out of your country.
Moving on now, you also talked today
about your new plan for economic
migration, talking about work permits
or green cards. It doesn't solve the
Sangatte problem, it doesn't stop
Nothing on its own will solve this. It
needs a jigsaw of measures. I hope to
come forward with the bones of a
nationality asylum system. Part of that
will be the expansion of work permit
system, part of it will be much greater
co-operation across Europe and the
world, using the UN in the way the
Australians do, to be able to
manage the flow of those entitled
to come into the country, clamping
down on traffickers and because
that undermines the system and they
are themselves exploited and of
course to secure good community and
race relations within our country,
where those who are seeking refugee
status have a safe haven.
You want to deal with religious hatred.
Are you going to be able to criticise
religion once this law is passed?
Yes, dialogue is something we seek
to protect. That is the alternative
to the destruction we see from
terrorists who believe they can get
their way by frightening and
terrorising us into capitulation.
Therefore dialogue, discussion, the
ability to be able to examine each
other's faiths has to be possible.
Hate is an entirely different
In today's debate, the repeated
word was stigma, every speaker
talked about the stigma and a lot
of that was because of vouchers,
people believe vouchers were
inhumane and strip people of their
dignity. You seem to be signalling
that there will be a change. Will
vouchers of themselves go in the
I deliberately didn't give an assurance
today that I could announce the end of
vouchers. We have a voucher review.
I want to bring it together with the
broader picture I described today when
I report to Parliament.
Are you uncomfortable with them?
Do I believe there are problems with
vouchers, yes I do. My job is not
to take one individual action that
could be misinterpreted with
incorrect signals but to package
this in the careful balance that
constitutes a safe haven on the
one hand and hard headed reality in
terms of world movement of people
on the other.
Are you concerned or is the Government
concerned the removal of vouchers to be
replaced by cash might be interpreted
by some as going soft on asylum seekers?
That's why vouchers were introduced.
A clear signal. I think that the case that's
been put is one which we have to
consider very seriously. The problems
that I faced over the last three weeks
have not made it possible to come to
a finality on this, but we will do by the
end of October.
This week signalled in the short-term
there's no question of ID cards. But what
about the idea of entitlement cards that
could be verifying the legitimacy of
employment, social security and the
lack of display of a card could
lose rights to health and education,
is that a possibility?
The position hasn't changed from the
announcement I made with the BBC
on 14th September. There's been no
change in policy from myself or Number
Ten. We believe that this issue is worthy
consideration. We believe it should be
seen in the broader context of
entitlement and citizenship, not purely
of the events of 11th September and
we're going to consider this carefully
before making an announcement. If we
do decide we should go ahead with
this, we would need to consult on it.