Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is making very important
points, I acknowledge; however, his argument is based on a
misunderstanding of what the CTA is. It is based on the principle that
once a person has been granted leave to enter one part of the CTA, they
will not normally require leave to enter another part. Our proposals
protect that principle, but requiring documentation can address the
problem of third-country nationals, which is not what he is talking
about at the moment. Does he accept the intent behind the
policy?
Mr.
Blunt: I accept the intent but not the practicality. The
perfectly obvious alternative is to ensure that the CTA works. It is
around the boundaries of the CTA that one wants to achieve control. One
does not want to start setting up double systems of control, at
considerable inconvenience and expense to all
concerned. Mr.
David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab): I have always
understood that when any flight comes in from Ireland to any part of
the United Kingdom, special treatment is given to that flight. That has
always been the case. If a flight comes into Edinburgh from Dublin, the
passengers do not go through the same system as everyone else. They
never have done. There has been a special lane for Irish flights,
especially during the
troubles.
Mr.
Blunt: Of course there was a special lane during the
troubles, because there was a special threat, but there was not the
need to change the immigration controls system within the CTA, even
during the troubles.
I have
carefully examined the arguments made by Lord West in another place and
I listened to the Minister this morning in the hope of hearing
convincing arguments on why we should override the constitutional,
emotional, practical and financial objections to the measure, but I am
afraid that none of the arguments stack up on examination. As part of
the standard pattern of the Government scratching around for
third-party endorsement for supposed security measures, SOCA suddenly
produced new arguments about trafficking in Northern Ireland two days
before Report in another place. The figure of 8,000 was introduced at a
rather late stage.
Lord West
referred to
“examples of
people of international counter-terrorism interest”.
What does
that mean? The Government have to make a better case for making
substantial changes in this area than a statement as bland and as
undetailed as that. Lord West used the following metaphor:
“I
believe that this is happening because we are tightening up our borders
by a raft of means. Rather like water finding an opening in a ship when
it is sinking, those who have been thwarted are pushing at every single
door. I have no doubt whatsoever that something has got to be done to
block this breach in our defences.”—[Official Report,
House of Lords, 1 April 2009; Vol. 709, c.
1111.] I
concede to Lord West in expertise on sinking ships. He was a
distinguished commander in the Falklands when HMS Ardent had the
misfortune to sink after being attacked by the Argentine air force when
it was under his command. However, the gaping hole blown in the
Government’s argument is the UK-Ireland land border. That hole
remains because it is impractical to address it. I will return shortly
to how one could police that border and explain why it is
impractical. 12
noon If
one is going to come forward with measures such as this, one should
understand what they mean to the people who will be subject to them. I
turn to the arguments put forward by Lord Glentoran in another place.
In the debate on Report that led to this measure being so roundly
rejected, he
said: “It
occasionally gets forgotten that Northern Ireland is as integral a part
of the United Kingdom as Yorkshire or Lancashire. I do not know what
the Yorkshireman and the Lancashire folk would feel if they had to
provide identification in the form of passports to travel from one
county to the other. That is effectively
what this Bill is doing for the Northern Ireland folk. Over the years we
have had free travel, which has worked wonderfully. The reason that it
was necessary and still is necessary is that those who benefit from it
are, largely, the poorest in our society. A large number of people from
both Ireland and Northern Ireland earn their living in England and
Scotland—not so much in Wales. They need to be able to travel
freely, easily and without hassle to see their families from time to
time when they
can.” My
noble Friend went on to say of Lord
West: “I
explained to the Minister this morning that the people of Northern
Ireland will see this part of this Bill as another way of getting rid
of them out of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that, whether you shake
your heads or not, that is how it is perceived. I could talk to you
very civilly and say that maybe it is not like that, but that is how
the people in Belfast, Armagh and Londonderry will see it—as
another imposition and another move one step away from the unity with
this nation and this Parliament for which most of those in Northern
Ireland have been fighting for the past 40
years.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April
2009; Vol. 709, c. 1097,
1098.] These
are emotive and important
matters. In
support of that argument, Lord Kilclooney
said: “I
agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran: it is offensive if it is
suggested that the people of Northern Ireland are to be treated
differently from people elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Is that
because there is water between Northern Ireland and England? If so, why
are the people of the Isle of Wight not treated
differently?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1
April 2009; Vol. 709, c.
1107.] A sense
of identity and nationality are important to people. Therefore, the bar
that one has to jump in introducing such measures should be
correspondingly
high. The
measure is also careless of the constitutional relationship between the
United Kingdom and our Crown dependencies, particularly the Channel
Islands. The Minister will be familiar with the arguments put forward
by Lord Goodlad, who sits on the cross-party Constitution Committee in
the other place that was quite devastating about the consultation,
particularly with regard to the Channel Islands. He
reported: “We
found that such consultation as did take place gave the impression of
being muddled and tardy, showing little appreciation of the
constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Crown
dependencies. The Chief Minister of Jersey told your Lordships’
Select Committee that there is a mismatch between the policy intent and
the possible effects of the legislative
change.” He
then quoted Senator Le Sueur, who said that
that “opens
the way, at any time of the UK Government’s choosing, for the
significant change of practice that they say they do not presently
envisage”. Senator
Le Sueur
added: “There
are absolutely no safeguards to prevent such controls being implemented
or to protect the long-standing rights of Channel Islanders to travel
freely to the United Kingdom, in accordance with their constitutional
relationship as set out in numerous Royal
Charters”.—[Official Report, House of Lords,
1 April 2009; Vol. 709, c.
1101-1102.] The
Select Committee of the other place concluded that it was
“difficult to
reconcile the modest policy aims stated by the Government (of
occasionally, on the basis of intelligence, stopping and questioning
people arriving from or departing to the Crown dependencies) with the
far-reaching legal powers claimed by the proposed amendment to section
1 of the Immigration Act 1971 (which would enable fixed and routine
border controls). This mismatch is in and of itself constitutionally
inappropriate: Parliament should not grant to Government wide legal
authority in excess of the powers properly needed to implement a
proposed policy.”
Those senses relate to
what this means for the people of Northern Ireland and the
people of the Crown dependencies. Also, as the Government are having
some difficulty agreeing a memorandum of understanding with the states
of Jersey, I should be grateful if the Minister tells us whether things
have improved since the failure to get the states of Jersey to sign up
to this before report of the Bill in the other
place. I
will now discuss the practicality of the measure. The gaping hole in
this is the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The
noble Lord West said he was familiar with that land border. I am too: I
had brief familiarity with it in an earlier incarnation, and as a
spokesman for the Conservative party on Northern Ireland, visiting
there in 2002, to examine what was then the significant problem of
gasolene smuggling over the border. It is easy to get lost between one
side of that border and the other, and to be unsure of exactly which
side one is on. Therefore, the practical policing of it is immensely
difficult and produced a series of embarrassments to British soldiers
trying to track the IRA during the troubles. You, Sir Nicholas, and
other ex-soldiers such as I, will be more than familiar with that. I do
not understand the practicalities of policing that border—of
trying to differentiate between nationalities of the common travel area
and non-CTA nationals. In this, happily, post-troubles environment,
people who live in that area and travel around the border will not be
anticipating carrying identity documents.
That has led
the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has carefully
examined a number of these details, to be concerned about the basis on
which identification will take place. Its concern is that racial
profiling will occur. It referred to the Republic of Ireland’s
taking measures because of its concern about entry to the Republic from
the UK—some of the gardai’s actions have bordered on
racial profiling. The Minister will be aware that our authorities in
Belfast have not been entirely immune from that; there was a
substantial payout to a UK citizen of Nigerian origin who was
improperly detained in that city.
Another
argument advanced was that the measures would help address the source
of organised crime. As the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
says in its evidence to the
Committee, “It
is unclear why, if agendas unconnected with immigration control are
part of the CTA reforms, Government overlooked mentioning this in the
CTA consultation documents, it is also unclear how the proposed routine
immigration control activity on the land border ‘targeting
non-CTA nationals’, could in any way address crime or security
issues that are, on experience, much more likely to involve British and
Irish
citizens.” Given
my experience—a little dated now—of seeing the nature of
serious organised crime, particularly that of petrol smuggling across
the border, either United Kingdom or Irish citizens were certainly the
commissioners and executors of that scale of
crime. If
the land border is to be policed properly, the Northern Ireland Human
Rights Commission also raised concerns about the implications and
whether the powers would be reminiscent of emergency-type powers that
could act contrary to the normalisation of security arrangements under
the Belfast agreement. Conservative Members oppose such a move. The
scrapping of the common travel area and the placing of new burdens on
those travelling between different parts of the United
Kingdom, and between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands, and the
Isle of Man and, above all, the Irish Republic would be bad for
business and an inconvenience to passengers and would, in any case,
prove unworkable. The
Government say that such a provision will help fight crime. We do not
believe that it would do so to a significant degree, nor do we believe
that its impact would justify the measure. We believe strongly that,
whatever potential benefits the amendment might bring, the Government
have signally failed to explain their case, either on the record or by
any other means. If there are to be distinctions between means of entry
under the Bill, by which I mean if legislation bringing in increased
controls is to apply exclusively to arrival by sea and air, that will
surely encourage travellers to favour land routes between the Irish
Republic and Northern Ireland. It must be the case that would-be
terrorists or members of criminal gangs who already favour the land
route would continue to do so, and it calls into question the logic of
scrapping a CTA for air and sea travel. Furthermore, the impact on
those carriers who operate between the north and the south would be
substantial. Any additional burden placed on travellers will again
drive them to use the land route, which, in effect, could not be
policed.
Neither the
noble Lord West in another place nor the Minister here has made a clear
enough case for such a change in the law to persuade us to accept the
Government’s amendments. Do they have evidence that is more
substantial than the line used by Lord West that there are some people
of interest in international counter-terrorism? If so, we really need
to do better than that and to know and understand matters. We can then
get a proper handle on why the measure is being brought forward. If the
issue is so important, why is the measure being rushed through now
rather than being brought forward under another Bill that will permit
more time for consideration and allow it to find its place with the
other measures that have been postponed for examination?
The hon.
Member for Rochdale alluded to expense. The benefits are unquantified
and unquantifiable, but some of the costs have been identified. The
wide-ranging estimate of border control staff costs is between
£2.5 million to £4.5 million each year. If
there was to be an attempt to make the measure work by policing a land
border properly, the figures would rocket upwards. The reduced output
to tourism over the medium term due to reduced travel is estimated at
approximately £43.5 million over 10 years. If the measure
resulted in queues and inconvenience at airports and seaports, in
particular for the Channel Islands where tourism is such a vital part
of their industry, the scale of that damage could be significantly
understated in the impact
assessment. 12.15
pm The
Minister stressed that his proposed changes do not affect leave to
remain but simply add an element of control. The Government have
consistently taken opportunities to increase control and to accrue
powers to the state. The Minister underestimates the distaste that our
citizens now have for the constant demands for further paperwork and
further forms of identity as they go about their business within their
own borders. That should apply no less to our citizens—fellow
subjects—from Northern Ireland than to those from anywhere else
in
the United Kingdom. As expressed in the debates in another place, Northern
Ireland is as much part of the United Kingdom as Surrey or Lancashire.
There may well be benefits to the police or to customs officials if
they could insist on seeing paperwork from travellers between those
counties, but it would be the most enormous affront to their residents.
The same applies to those in Northern Ireland, who face the prospect
of an age-old travel regime being ripped up without satisfactory justification. The
powers of search that apply at our ports and airports are not
inconsequential, as I am sure the Minister knows from closely following
the debate when the new code of practice for examining officers was
recently revised and approved by statutory instrument. The power for
further passport checks adds to feelings among ordinary passengers that
they are going about their business under a cloud of suspicion. Also,
with this Government, when new laws bringing in new controls are
introduced, there is a tendency for them to be extended, for their
scope to be enlarged and for the powers to be abused. Mission creep is
endemic to the Government’s approach to law and order and
counter-terrorism. The Opposition Benches are properly sceptical, and
sadly we must be no less sceptical when organised crime and terrorism
are cited as the reasons for a new measure without satisfactory
evidence. The Government have lost the benefit of the doubt in this
area. That is, by the way, another reason why we need a new Government
with a new
mandate. I
have considered the financial aspects of the measures, but we have to
present an alternative to meet the concerns expressed by the
Government. Obviously, that would be improving the external boundaries
of the common travel area in co-operation with the authorities of the
Irish Republic and of the Crown dependencies. Why can we not follow
that alternative route? Should it not be possible to put in place
controls in the Republic of Ireland? They could be satisfactory, so
that fraud such as the one that the Minister adduced from the Daily
Express can be properly identified—accepting that that one
was properly identified.
Surely there
is no lack of willingness on the part of the Irish authorities to
co-operate in that area. The Minister has already told the Committee
that they are concerned about illegal immigration into the Republic of
Ireland from the United Kingdom. Surely that is an area of obvious
common interest. Setting up the proper e-Borders scheme for both the
United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland would achieve the objectives
set out by the Government. That is an obvious alternative strategy for
us to
pursue. I
want to conclude by asking the Minister to tell us why he sees the
steps in the measures as so critical. Are there reasons that he has not
yet been prepared to share with the Committee? The amendment
effectively scraps the common travel area, discriminates between
different British subjects and burdens the residents of the Channel
Islands and the Isle of Man, as well as citizens of the Irish Republic
and Northern Ireland. It would end the long-established principle of
the common travel area and it would do so at significant cost, for the
Government and the travel industry. Now is hardly the time to be
undermining tourist operators embraced by the common travel area across
the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland and the Channel
Islands.
An account of
the distinguished service of the noble Lord West in the Falkland
Islands described the time after his ship was hit by an Argentine
bomb: “Barely
an hour after the first Argentine bomb had struck the stem of HMS
Ardent as it stood guard over the main Falkland landings, the
ship’s steering was gone and the frigate was no longer capable
of defending itself. West had no choice. He gave the order to abandon
ship.” The
policy produced by the Government is no longer capable of defending
itself. I suggest gently to the Minister that it is time for him to
abandon ship.
| 
