---

EU Immigration and Asylum Policy

12.31 pm

David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if he will make a statement on European Union immigration and asylum policy.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): In 1997, the Amsterdam European Council agreed that immigration and asylum would be dealt with under European Community treaty. Under that agreement, Britain obtained what is called the Title IV protocol, which established that the UK could opt into those immigration and asylum measures that we believed were right for Britain and right for Europe. That clearly means that we can remain opted out of those propositions that we do not believe are beneficial to the UK. It also clearly means that we can retain sovereignty over the control of our borders and, of course, the necessary security and immigration screening, which will now be enhanced by electronic border controls and surveillance, and the introduction of ID cards. That complements the new controls established in northern France and Belgium.

At the Justice and Home Affairs Council yesterday—the final text will be agreed and issued today—I was able, on behalf of the UK, to influence the decisions on issues ranging from European external borders to the future research on and review of any processing arrangements that might be made across the EU. On the first of those issues, we were able to establish that we would support collaboration but not control organised from Brussels. On the second, we were able to ensure that individual nations would retain control over decisions on who would be permitted to enter the country and, of course, the terms on which they would be allowed to remain.

All of that was achieved in the context that Britain is not part of the Schengen travel area and retains the ability to opt into or stay out of agreements reached by other European nations, and our balanced and sensible policy on asylum and immigration. That policy has reduced unfounded asylum claims by 70 per cent. over the past two years, reduced processing times on asylum claims from 20 months to eight weeks, and established a registration scheme for EU citizens from accession states, which has proved that legal economic migration can go hand in hand with tough controls on clandestine entry.

Finally, I wish to make it clear that as we are at the end of the line, in terms of smuggling of both people and drugs, the EU is crucial to us in ensuring that our interests are put at the forefront of European debate in a positive way, instead of allowing the failings of other countries in their border controls or preventing organised criminality to pass through their states to detrimentally affect the British isles. That is why I was pleased to contribute to the Justice and Home Affairs Council debate yesterday and to move towards a sensible agreement.

David Davis: I am sure that the Home Secretary will understand if we treat everything the Government say on this subject with a great deal of scepticism. We
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1296
 
remember Labour's promises on the charter of fundamental rights. If the constitution and charter to which the Government have so meekly signed up ever come into force, they will have no small impact on our asylum and immigration laws.

We remember the Prime Minister telling us that the charter would "not be legally binding". A former Minister for Europe told us that it would be as much use in court as the Beano, yet now we know that, under the constitution, it will be absolutely legally binding and, if the president of the European Court of Justice is to be believed, would have sweeping effects. So what price the Government's policies on Europe?

This time, we are losing our power of veto on asylum and immigration—a matter of constitutional importance. The Government do not even have the courage to admit it. Yesterday, the Home Secretary attacked me for using the phrase "opt in"; he said it was an opt-out, but then the Prime Minister said it was an opt-in. Does the Home Secretary know which it is? The treaty articles are clear. We can opt in at two points: at the beginning of the majority voting process, in which case we have a vote; or within three months of the end, in which case we do not have a vote.

The Government have said that they want to be at the forefront of influencing policy on the issue. If they want to be at the forefront, an opt-in is essential, but they do not control the policy outcome to which they have committed themselves. Let us make it clear: once we have opted in, we cannot opt out, even if the European Court of Justice reinterprets the policy against our interest, as it has done before.

The Government are employing the politics of confusion—I think, deliberately. By confusing the country, they hope that no one will notice the disappearance of the asylum and immigration veto. The Home Secretary will remember that before coming to office his party promised to keep asylum and immigration a matter for Governments—Governments—in the EU. It is not a matter for the Commission or the European Court of Justice. His Government have systematically broken that promise. They have allowed the Commission the power to propose laws in that area, they have allowed the Court to adjudicate over that area and now they are scrapping the British veto.

Does the Home Secretary recognise that if the Government are successful and implement the European constitution, complete with the charter of fundamental rights, it will give the European Court greater powers, as stated by the president of the Court? He said that the constitution

"will bring new areas and new subjects under the court's jurisdiction. There will be one EU with a single legal personality, and there will be one common EU jurisdiction . . . the inclusion of the charter of fundamental rights in the constitution will help our work . . . because it will give us a complete catalogue of protected fundamental rights."

Does the Home Secretary recognise that the charter, our opt-ins and the body of European immigration and asylum law will give the Court powers to adjudicate and reinterpret British law? Given the Court's history of major reinterpretation, is that not a matter of concern to him?

The Government's view on this matter has undergone a remarkable transformation. First, we had a former
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1297
 
Minister for Europe saying:

"We have made it quite clear that on tax"—

obviously, we know what is coming next—

"border controls and immigration, we will not consider qualified majority voting or the removal of the veto."

Then, during the process of creating the European constitution, the Government's representative who is with us today, the Leader of the House, tried to amend article III-168 to remove clauses imposing qualified majority voting. He said that those changes were "fundamentally important", but he failed and the Government rolled over. Now, we have the Home Secretary saying that he actually wants qualified majority voting because, as he said today, we are at the end of the line.

The only reason that we are at the end of the line, as the Home Secretary describes it, is that we have a helpless and pathetic Government who are failing to control our borders and to send back failed asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are supposed to stop in the first safe country, not the last; they are not supposed to keep going until they reach the country that is the softest touch.

The Home Secretary says that he wants majority voting because we are the fastest moving country in Europe on asylum. By some definitions, I suppose that is true. The Government's record on asylum and immigration shows that four in five asylum seekers never leave the country, more than 250,000 failed asylum seekers still live in the UK and immigration is up from an average of 50,000 a year under the last Conservative Government to 140,000 a year under the Labour Government. Our own National Audit Office tells us that our immigration and asylum measures are not as good as those of the Dutch and the Germans. Is that what the Home Secretary calls being in control?

This is the last question: why are the Government agreeing to this now? These measures are a part of the European constitution, on which the Prime Minister has promised the British people a veto and a referendum, so why are the Government conceding the case now? Is it because they want to present the constitution to the British people as a fait accompli? Is that the only way that the Government believe they can win such a referendum? Is the whole approach not an underhand way to undermine that referendum? As usual, the Government have returned claiming a victory. In truth, they are trying to cover up a surrender with serious consequences for Britain's future ability to control its own borders.

Mr. Blunkett: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is on the wrong bandwagon. Yesterday and this morning, the Justice and Home Affairs Council was not dealing with the charter of fundamental rights, nor with an abandonment of our border controls; it was working out a five-year programme for justice and home affairs across Europe. [Interruption.] Well, let me answer some of the inane questions that were asked.

Why are we at the end of the road? We are at the end of the road because we cannot move our nation next to Estonia or just off the Italian coast and because people travel through Europe. If they travel through Europe, they enter Europe's land and sea borders. It is inevitable
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1298
 
that we will have to work with, should work with and would want to work with other European Union countries to protect the external land and sea borders, including helping, as we have already, in the Mediterranean to stop people reaching our shores.

This is really very entertaining because the Opposition seem to think that, if we just wished people away and did not co-operate with other European countries, somehow people would not travel through the Balkans into central and eastern Europe and, somehow, they would not cross the Mediterranean to Italy, Greece or Spain. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are heckling, but when people get into the EU, they become an EU issue, and when they travel through the EU, they reach our shores.

---