---

Mr. Blunkett: I accept that I cannot stop the other 24 EU countries going ahead if they want to, but I ask that hon. Members understand what we are talking about and listen rather than simply presuming that they know what we mean, or reading a few headlines or even leaders in this morning's papers and misunderstanding us. I have spelt out again and again that if we do not like what is agreed, we will not opt in. It is as simple as that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: What if we opt in and we do not like it?

Mr. Blunkett: Well, we would opt into those things that we agreed with and opt out of those things that we did not agree with. So we would opt into the things that are in the interests of the British nation, which is collaboration and co-operation on asylum and immigration issues, on border controls and on sensible identification, and we would opt out of those things that damage our border controls or the decisions that we take on who is allowed into the country, on what terms and on what basis they can stay. I have made that clear to the House and that will remain our policy.

Mr. Ivan Henderson (Harwich) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the Government are retaining the right to control their borders for immigration purposes before the Conservatives start one of their nasty anti-asylum campaigns against the EU? The Conservative candidate for my constituency is saying that he wants a total withdrawal from Europe so that we have no influence over such issues.

Mr. Blunkett: I can confirm that not only do we have control over our borders, but we have moved the essential security and immigration border controls to northern France and Belgium. So we have immediate bilateral co-operation with France, and now with Belgium. As a result of our participation as of yesterday in these issues, we have influence over the borders of other European countries that are essential for our well-being and integrity. We can now support, help and work with those on the central and eastern European borders and on the sea borders of countries such as Italy, Greece and Spain. In other words, we have the best of both worlds: we can secure our borders and enhance and support the border controls and security of other EU nations.

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Will the Home Secretary be less dismissive of those who differ with him and understand that all hon. Members try to represent the interests of the people of the United Kingdom? Will he confirm that whether we opt in or opt out, we have to admit people from outside the EU who legitimately and legally come into the EU, as we have
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1302
 
found in the past? What assurances is he giving to the people of this country that the level of immigration and asylum in this country will drop dramatically, because we are the most overcrowded country in the EU?

Mr. Blunkett: There is nothing new under the sun about people who arrive in the EU with legitimate and legal travel documents being able to travel to other EU countries. The question of the terms under which they are there is another matter. If they have EU citizenship, they travel as EU citizens. There is no difference now with 25 member states than there was with 15. The question that we have been addressing, as we did with accession countries, is whether people are here legally, whether they registered and whether they paid taxes and national insurance, which they have done in large numbers. They have not been entitled to benefits other than when they are receiving long-term settlement, because we ruled that out. That is true of the habitual residence tests for those who travel from outside the EU into the Union itself and then into Britain.

People are welcome to come here as visitors, holidaymakers and business people. They are welcome to contribute to our economy. They are not welcome if they exploit our welfare state and our services, which is why I am in favour of identity cards, because we would then know who was entitled to what and whether people are receiving the service to which they are entitled.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): In an era of political and economic instability in many parts of the world—not least the Balkans, parts of Africa and Latin America—is it not all the more important that Britain, while trying to create its own robust asylum and immigration policy, should not seek to go it alone, but should try to ensure that all members of the EU, whether through bilateral agreements or the EU acting in concert, manages to achieve a robust policy? That is important not least because countries like Spain have problems from Morocco, north Africa and Latin America, and countries to the east face problems from the Balkans. Is it not in our interests to co-operate and not follow the Conservatives' advice, which is especially ironic given that it was 33 years ago on Thursday that their party took us into the Community?

Mr. Blunkett: It is true that we can do a much better job for Britain and for Europe as a whole if we collaborate on essential issues of clandestine entry. That is why we have joint agreements with countries like Germany on work in the Balkans. Project Reflex has been organised under the National Crime Squad, and partner agencies—the immigration service and others—use intelligence-based work to stop people getting through borders. If we can get the EU to feel that it owns that activity and is participating in it, we have 25 countries, rather than two, three or four countries, collaborating together. That has to be the right way forward.

Pete Wishart (North Tayside) (SNP): Does the Secretary of State accept that Scotland, with the fastest falling population in Europe, has different immigration requirements from the rest of the UK? How will the
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1303
 
proposals address the crippling situation in Scotland? Is it not time for Scotland's immigration issues to be settled in Scotland?

Mr. Blunkett: I do not wish to introduce a visa regime between England, Wales and Scotland, or to have to refurbish at great expense Hadrian's wall. We would rather collaborate with the Scottish Executive, as we are doing, on their imaginative and progressive policy to attract people to Scotland, to encourage them to settle and to be positive economic migrants. We will work with the Executive over the months ahead to do precisely that so that what is right for a particular region of the UK can be encouraged and supported, even if it is not the right solution for another region or part of the UK.

Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): Does the Home Secretary accept that while it is difficult for any modern country to control the flow of immigration and asylum seekers across its borders, it is considerably less difficult for an island such as Great Britain to control entry at a limited number of points of entry than it is for our continental neighbours to control a porous, continuous land border? Is it not therefore always in our interests to retain 100 per cent. entry control at our points of entry instead of trading that in for a one-in-25 say in a futile attempt to make non-porous borders with Ukraine, Turkey and other parts of the continent?

Mr. Blunkett: But we are doing both. There is nothing at all in what has been agreed that stops us operating our border controls. The difficulty that we faced in the past—as a former Cabinet member the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of this—is that it was not until people reached our soil that our border controls came into effect so, by the time that they did so, they were entitled to claim asylum. By moving our border controls to France, operating pre-embarkation controls, photographing documentation and having liaison officers at airports across the world, we are beginning to be able to screen people before they reach British soil. Of course, it is beneficial to be an island when we can move our security and immigration controls to France and Belgium. Such controls are more essential for us than they are for continental nations that can turn people back at their borders so that they do not set foot on their soil. However, if people arrive here first we have responsibility for removing them, which is the root of the dilemma on asylum that we faced in the past, when being an island was not an advantage and became a disadvantage. No one has yet invented a free zone in Folkestone that does not count as part of the British nation, although I imagine that some electors there wish that they could.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) (UUP): The Home Secretary said that we were at the end of the road,
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1304
 
but in fact Northern Ireland is. We have a long frontier as well as other problems. How far do the arrangements in northern France protect us from people who travel to that country from places as far away as Greenland and Iceland, then on to the Republic and into Northern Ireland, where they claim asylum status? We welcome visitors and eastern European immigrants who have a commercial involvement in the country's industry, but can the right hon. Gentleman reassure us that he will tighten up the clandestine routes that bring asylum seekers to our shores?

---