Clause
4
Interpretation:
“port”
Damian
Green:
I beg to move amendment No. 43, in
clause 4, page 3, line 2, at
end insert ‘and an international railway
station’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 44, in
clause 4, page 3, line 5, after
‘aircraft’, insert ‘or
train’.
No. 45,
in
clause 4, page 3, line 6, after
‘aircraft’, insert ‘or
train’.
Damian
Green:
This is an attempt to probe what appears to be a
slightly peculiar weakness in the Bill. The current subsection (1) says
that “port” includes an “airport” and a
“hoverport”, but not any of the international train
stations that we now have in this country. I am genuinely puzzled as to
why that is not the case. I feel it particularly personally, since one
of the two international train stations is in my constituency and,
seriously, is a point at which illegal immigration has been tried a
lot. If there is any hint that, owing to bad drafting, oversight or
whatever, certain powers have not been applied to international railway
stations, that would be bad legislation and we should seek to amend
that anyway. However, it would also have a serious effect on the safety
of my constituents, so the Minister will understand why I feel so
personally, not least because, although we now have the excellent
Ashford International station and Waterloo, during the course of this
year a third international station is opening at Ebbsfleet in north
Kent. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that you and other members of
the Committee may not be as familiar with it as I am, but it is in the
middle of nowhere. If one wanted to abscond—suspecting that
nobody would see one fleeing for a few hours—Ebbsfleet would be
quite a good place to do
so.
There are many
arguments for ensuring that all the powers, controls and legislation
that apply in all our ports and airports apply at the international
railway stations as well. As the Minister will be aware, the situation
is becoming ever more serious, despite the fact that the Sangatte camp
in Calais was got rid of a few years ago. That camp was there
specifically for people trying to come to this country
illegally—that was its only purpose, ever. The last Home
Secretary but two, I think, was successful in persuading the French
Government to dismantle the camp, which was a good thing.
Unfortunately, the mayor of Calais is now bringing it back in a
slightly disguised form and, once again, increasing numbers of people
are gathering at the channel ports to try their luck getting through
the channel
tunnel.
One
can therefore assume that the trains that stop at the international
stations are once again becoming vulnerable to that kind of attack,
with people trying to use them in one way or another to get into this
country. Some of the instances have been horrific. There have been
cases of people clinging to the bottom of the trains as they come
through the channel tunnel. Anything that discourages people from doing
something so unbelievably dangerous would save lives as well as making
our borders more secure. It is important not to underestimate the
importance of trains as a medium for international travel these days.
They are likely to become more important and, sadly, more a target of
those who seek to get into this country illegally. The purpose of
amendments Nos. 43 to 45 is simply to ensure that the protections that
the Minister regards as necessary at ports and airports are also
available at international railway
stations. 6.30
pm
Mr.
Byrne:
I am grateful for the way in which the hon.
Gentleman has put his argument. When I reflected on the amendment I had
not quite drawn the connection between it and the constituency that he
represents. Listening to his thoughtful argument, I can quite see that
he brings passion to the
matter.
From the tenor
of my remarks over the course of the day, the hon. Gentleman will know
that my instinct in much of the Bill has been to seek wide, sweeping
powers, but through a process of deliberation I have been persuaded
that actually Parliament would not look kindly upon my asking for
wide-ranging powers for which there was no purpose. That is a
legitimate process of debate through which we have gone. We have sought
in the Bill, even in this clause, to ask only for powers that we think
are necessary. I assure him that the question whether to include
railway stations and trains was considered in full. They were not
included because it was not deemed
necessary.
It is only
right that, in my response to the hon. Gentleman, I should take the
opportunity to pay tribute to the immigration service and its work in
France and Belgium, and to the degree of co-operation that we have
received, particularly in France from the police aux frontières.
The arrangement of juxtaposed controls, which I was grateful to be able
to visit at the end of last year, has meant that in the past year alone
about 17,000 illegal immigrants have been stopped on the other side of
the channel.
The
process of offshoring our border controls is integral to our philosophy
of border control, and we shall have a lot more to say on that
philosophy and the substance that follows it in the months to come. It
is important that controls are in place on the other side of the
channel because so much of the traffic to which the hon. Gentleman
referred is in the hands of organised crime. When I visited Calais at
the end of last year I was interested to learn from the prefect of the
area and from our own immigration service that they estimate that most
illegal migration that is attempted across the channel is in the hands
of organised crime—gangs originating in either Afghanistan or
Iran. Such controls are therefore extremely
important.
The reason
why I have been reassured that the amendments are not needed is
precisely that we have invested so successfully in offshoring our
border controls to France and Belgium. The checks that are needed are
undertaken abroad, so there is ample time for immigration officers to
notify police at the other end of the tunnel if necessary so that they
can take the appropriate action.
There are of course some
limitations on the exercise of police-like powers abroad. European
integration is a great thing, but there are none the less constraints
on
our ability to have British immigration officers or police operating in
an unfettered manner on the continent. Perhaps we will be able to
change that situation one day, but under the terms of the tripartite
agreement between the UK, France and Belgium, and of consequential
administrative agreements, there are some constraints on the exercise
of police-like powers in offshore
controls. The nub of
the argument is that because we have
exported—offshored—our border controls to the other side
of the channel, checks are undertaken over there. That gives us the
opportunity to identify individuals who may be undesirable and ensure
that they come nowhere near the shores of the British isles. If they
are British citizens and therefore individuals whom we cannot
necessarily prevent from coming to the British isles, the fact that the
controls are exercise offshore means that there is time to make
provisions to receive them should they be of interest to the police or
security authorities.
I am grateful for the
opportunity to explain a little more about our reasoning and why we
have not sought powers that are deemed unnecessary. I hope that that
reassurance is sufficient that the hon. Member for Ashford may feel
able to seek leave to withdraw his
amendment.
Damian
Green:
No, it is not, is my short response to the
Minister’s last hope, for a number of reasons.
First, the Minister will surely
be aware, as I certainly am, that those who travel regularly on the
various types of train going through the tunnel give what I might
politely describe as patchy reports of the level of security on both
the French and Belgian trains, and particularly regarding passport
checks on the trains themselves. It may be that he is being assured by
whoever it is that the system is now marvellous, has all been offshored
and is completely secure, but that is not the regular
passengers’ experience.
Secondly, even if the Minister
takes the views of his officials rather than mine, as might be
perfectly reasonable even with my particular expertise in this field,
my amendments seek only to add powers that would potentially be useful,
because I suspect that he and his advice are just wrong. The advisers
might be saying that we obviously have problems at airports and ports,
but there are none with the international rail service, yet that is
simply not the case. If the Minister is being assured that it is, he is
being misinformed. However, even if that advice were right today, he
would still have seen the projections that international rail is
extremely likely to extend in years to come to other countries, so that
journeys will start in other places.
For example, a few years ago it
was a regular thing for people to get themselves zipped into freight
trains in Milan and then unzipped when they got to Britain. That has
been stopped at present, but who knows when it will come back?
Frequently, those people were refugees from the Balkans. The scam was
stopped by various technological means, but the Minister and I know
perfectly well that somewhere out there a criminal gang is thinking of
some new form of people trafficking; one that would not be in either of
our imaginations or those of his officials. There will be some new way
of using international trains in future to smuggle people into this
country.
If the Minister neglects the
opportunity presented in the Bill to add international railway stations
to ports and airports, the House will have to return to the matter at
some future stage. Whichever powers we will have given to immigration
officers or a border police force and whatever we have in future, this
measure will be seen as a wasted opportunity. The net effect of the
explanation that the Minister has been given and that he has given to
the Committee is an impression that it is based on unwarranted
complacency. He might be assured that there are no problems
now—of course, I would disagree with that analysis—but
even if one agrees with that view, it is clear that he must know that
there will be problems in the future, and it seems perverse and
short-sighted to neglect the opportunity to include this
country’s small number of international railway stations under
the protection provisions of the Bill.
I have heard what the Minister
has to say and I have no desire to press the amendment to a vote, but I
implore him to take this issue away and look again at it. I think that
he will feel that it is in everyone’s best interest to change
his mind on adding railway stations to ports and
airports.
Mr.
Byrne:
There are two or three germane
points here. The hon. Gentleman highlighted two specific issues. First,
he said that there may be different and growing forms of people
smuggling in the future, and he outlined the scenario of trains from
Milan. The clauses relate not to foreign nationals and people smuggling
but to British citizens. Secondly, the issues that he identified such
as the evidence he receives from his own intelligence sources on the
other side of the channel about the extent of passport checking will
not be solved by equipping front-line immigration officers with
different powers. Those issues will be solved by the right kind of
investment in front-line immigration officers. That is why it is
regrettable that in the not-too-distant past, the James review, one of
many Conservative reports on immigration matters, suggested that the
IND’s budget should be halved. That is the wrong direction to
take. We need more investment in front-line immigration policing, not
less.
Mr.
Byrne:
The hon. Member for Peterborough is going to disown
the James
review.
Mr.
Jackson:
I am gratified that the Minister takes such an
avid interest in the prognostications of my right hon. and hon.
Friends, which is as it should be, given that we will be forming the
Government after the next general
election.
On
expenditure, is it not the case that under the comprehensive spending
review the Home Office budget will be reduced in real terms? In
fairness, the Minister is not in a position to lecture the Opposition
about the priorities of Home Office funding on
immigration.
Mr.
Byrne:
As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not a cut, but a
flat real-terms settlement in the Home Office. He will also know that
tax revenue is not the sole source of finance for the immigration
service, which
draws some fraction of its income from the visa fees that we impose on
foreign nationals. There is a timely debate to be had in the future
about whether those visa fees are set at the right level or whether
those who benefit most from coming to Britain and deciding that it
should be their long-term home should pay slightly more for that
privilege.
I want to
return to two matters that are relevant to this debate. The problems
that the hon. Member for Ashford identified should be solved not by
additional powers, but by early investment. It is worth bearing in mind
that policing at railway stations in the UK is already provided by a
fine force called the British Transport police, which provides the
service at Waterloo, and juxtaposed controls in Coquelles. Special
branch maintains a presence, particularly to carry out terrorism
work.
I am happy to
reflect on the evidence that the hon. Member for Ashford can provide on
this very serious issue. Border defences along the channel need to be
as strong as possible. They have always needed to be strong in our
history, and there is no reason why they should not need to be strong
in the future. The amendment could safely be withdrawn as there are
operational solutions that might be the remedy to the
problem.
Damian
Green:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 4
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Alan
Campbell.]
Adjourned
accordingly at sixteen minutes toSeven o’clock till
Thursday 8 March at Nine
o’clock.
| 
