| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): We are an island.
Mr. Blunkett: I have just been heckled on the point that we are an island. What a brilliant observation. We seem to remember that a previous Conservative Prime Minister opened, jointly with President Mitterrand, the channel tunnel. We seem to remember that a previous Prime Minister said that we were a global nation— and we are, with 90 million people a year travelling through our airports. Even Margaret Thatcher did not believe in fantasy island—somewhere off somewhere else.
The proposition that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) makes—that, somehow, the European Court of Justice will be able to rule on such issues in future—is no more true today than it was yesterday or the day before because, of course, that Court predates the EU, the treaty of Amsterdam and the constitutional discussions. Even a child learning in school would know that. A child learning in school would not necessarily know the Conservative party's policy on these issues, but I would expect the shadow Home Secretary to know his own party's proposition. [Interruption.] Well, let us take the words of a member of the Conservative party, talking about the protocol, which was agreed not as part of the convention, but in terms of the Amsterdam treaty, which we were debating yesterday. Qualified majority voting was an outcome of the Amsterdam Council in 1997, on which the previous Conservative Government had been working very hard before we were elected.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): You signed it.
Mr. Blunkett: We signed it, but we did so with the protocol that I described earlier. [Interruption.] Well, who got what wrong? Let us listen to the words of someone who might understand Tory party policy. Referring to the protocol, that individual called it "enhanced co-operation". He went on to say:
"It means that, instead of individual member states having fraught negotiations to opt-out of a new initiative, those that support it can simply decide to opt-in."
"This would allow those countries who want to integrate further to do so. But others would not be compelled to join them. It suits the integrationists. It suits the non-integrationists. Let's use it."
That was exactly what I agreed yesterday. Who said that he was in favour of enhanced co-operation, the ability to opt in or out and the use of the protocol from 1998 to
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1299
which he referred? Who advocated what I agreed yesterday? It was the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the Opposition, on 12 February 2004 in a speech in Berlin.
Once again, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is showing the House that he does not understand what his leader says or Tory party policy. He has no recourse to wriggle room because he does not do his homework. If he did, he would know that the Conservative leader is committed precisely and in terms to the agreement reached at Amsterdam, the protocol to which he referred and the agreement that I reached yesterday. If we do not like what other European Union countries do regarding immigration and nationality, we have the right to opt in or out to suit the British people. That is what I agreed yesterday, and I am proud of that.
Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester) (LD): May I say to the Home Secretary that on this issue we believe that he has done the right thing in Europe? Liberal Democrats have long argued that Britain should be a safe haven for asylum seekers, but it is right that we should not do that in isolation because other European countries should play a role. Surely yesterday's discussions in Luxembourg were a positive step in that direction. Is it not surprising that the Conservatives are opposed to the measures because they have argued that Britain is overburdened and that other countries should do more, yet yesterday's agreement was about achieving that over the next five years?
There was a discussion about passports at yesterday's meeting. Will the Home Secretary confirm that Ministers have gone way beyond the International Civil Aviation Organisation recommendations on passports and have agreed a system that will require both a facial biometric and a fingerprint? If that is the case, will he confirm that every UK citizen will be required to attend a special centre so that both a photograph and a fingerprint may be taken? In the light of last week's reports that the technology has a 10 per cent. error rate, will Parliament have the chance to debate such a major change to our passports? Will he tell the House the likely costs and time scale of the change?
Mr. Blunkett: For once in my life, I am happy to welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening words about yesterday's agreement.
Although it has not yet been confirmed, we are moving towards having at least two biometric identifiers on both passports and visas. That will be required for international travel anyway in the years to come and will be crucial so that travellers to the United States may avoid major problems—that was relevant yesterday. The change will take time and the European Union has not yet confirmed the precise nature of either the timetable or the regulations.
We do not accept the BBC reports on the failure rate of facial recognition. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been experimenting with a third biometric identifier, the iris of the eye, although there are challenges and difficulties that will have to be ironed out. We have several pilots in train to ensure that we get the system right, as we must. The BBC's take on the matter
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1300
was that facial recognition was difficult, but if we did not have fingerprints or iris technology, the face would be the only identifier on passports and visas because that is the form of identification that has been universally agreed. Of course we must get the technology right, but we need a bit of common sense on the matter because we cannot have secure passports, visas or identity cards without a specific identifier to make them secure. We must move forward quickly and we will learn from international experience. We can get the system right. It is sensible for us to do that, and it is vital for secure travel arrangements that we get the European Union on board.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) (Lab): Most of us accept that it makes sense for the European Union as a whole to consider asylum and immigration policy and that we cannot act in isolation. The Amsterdam agreement provided for that and gave us a choice on specific issues. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that decisions of that nature have had to be made a number of times since Amsterdam, sometimes on important issues? Will he consider how we scrutinise those decisions, because sometimes all that happens is that they go to one of the European Standing Committees and there is not an opportunity for many MPs to be involved in the scrutiny of important decisions that affect asylum and immigration policy?
Mr. Blunkett: There has been concern over a number of years that we get what goes to Standing Committee and what is debated in the House right. In fact, the House had a full-day's debate on the five-year justice and home affairs programme just a few days ago. I recall that the shadow Home Secretary was late, having had an extensive lunch break.
David Davis: You were not here at all.
Mr. Blunkett: No, I was not. I was about my business on behalf of the United Kingdom and the people I represent.
Mr. Blunkett: The right hon. Gentleman says he was doing the same at lunch time, and good luck to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) is right: we need to ensure that there is proper debate. He touches on another issue, however. Without the opt-in, which allows us to be out of those things on which we do not agree, we have to make a judgment—this is true of every Government—on whether we scupper the whole package and withdraw from the programme on the basis of one item on which we have doubts. Most Governments have had to choose, as did Margaret Thatcher on the Single European Act, to opt in rather than to opt out completely. With the arrangements in the protocol, we do not face that dilemma. If we do not like a particular element of the programme, we do not have to opt into it.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con):
Does the Home Secretary accept that the people of Britain are getting sick of constantly being told over many years by Governments of both parties that major
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1301
concessions to Europe will have no impact and not undermine their freedoms? Does he at least accept that if the EU passes something on immigration by majority vote, which the Government accept, there is nothing under these proposals that this elected Parliament can do to overturn it? In this case, as in so many others, the powers of this democratic Assembly are simply being thrown away and undermined. That happens again and again.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |