Tom
Brake: I start by reassuring the Minister that although in
an earlier exchange he referred to Liberal Democrat party policy on
immigration being libertarian, I know that he actually knows it is
nothing of the sort: it is firm, fair and effective. I would not want
his suggestion to stay on the record without my challenging it. That is
why we have long campaigned to reimpose the exit controls to which the
Minister referred earlier.
It is a
pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reigate, who gave a passionate
defence of the common travel area. It was only slightly marred,
perhaps, by his original reference to sinking ships in the Falklands,
although he recovered his position slightly in his latter reference to
that. He had many valid points that I shall not seek to go over again.
However, the Minister, opening the debate on this clause, underlined
the close
“social,
economic and cultural
ties” that
exist between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. He
recognised that, but regrettably the measures that he proposes do not
seem to take those ties into consideration—or, certainly, the
considerable social and economic impact that these proposals will have.
That is even though those impacts have been carefully identified; the
cost to tourism, for instance, is clearly listed, as are the staffing
costs. There is recognition, then, that these proposals have an impact,
which is documented; yet the Government are seeking to proceed with
them in any case.
The proposals
clearly will impact significantly on ethnic minority communities, and I
believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale will also seek to
take part in the debate on this clause, perhaps with a more personal
angle on the matter that we are discussing, the common travel area.
However, we have concerns on, for instance, the proposals for a very
restrictive list of documents that would be acceptable—notably,
just a passport or identity card. We are also concerned about the
potential for a criminal offence to be created or made if someone
travelling refuses to produce documents.
We welcome
the fact that the Government have given some assurances over there
being no fixed checkpoints on the land border, but like the hon. Member
for Reigate, I should like further clarification on precisely what sort
of targeted operations it will be possible to mount in a border area
that the hon. Gentleman knows much better than I, but which is clearly
fluid. There is a lot of travel, but the precise location of the border
is not necessarily known and many participants in criminal activities
are, indeed, British or Irish citizens, so some clarity from the
Government of precisely how they think these targeted operations will
be able to deliver might provide some reassurance. The costs, as the
hon. Gentleman has outlined, of the infrastructure that might be
required to implement this may well have been significantly
underestimated.
I have one
further point to which I hope the Minister might be able to respond. As
he knows, we have our differences on some aspects of the e-Borders
system but if the Republic of Ireland develops its system alongside the
developments in ours, does that create the potential for reducing
checks at any point in future? Our position is that the Minister has
said and done nothing in his opening remarks that leads us to believe
that the clause should be removed in the way that he wishes. Unless he
can provide clarification of an outstanding nature, I suspect that we
will join the Conservatives in a Division, should the matter be pressed
to a vote.
Mr.
David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab): I want to talk
specifically about the situation of the land bordering Northern
Ireland. As someone who has spent much of the last 20 years working in
Northern Ireland, I am pleased by the progress that is being made. One
of the great experiences of the last 10 years has been the fact that
every time someone travels from Northern Ireland to the Republic, they
no longer have to go through the checkpoints and controls that were
once there. Despite the fact that the CTA was in place, it was routine
for people to be stopped and searched. That was not because there was
immigration control down that side; it was because it was our soldiers
who had to do that. One of the great things is that that no longer
happens. However, even with those things in place, there was clearly an
easily accessible border, particularly for those who committed acts of
terrorism. People were going backwards and forwards across the border
with relative ease, even under those circumstances.
For the last
four years, until January, I served on the Northern Ireland Affairs
Committee. Two years ago, we produced a report into serious organised
crime, working with the security forces from north and south of the
border, and from this side of the Irish sea. The difference between the
Isle of Wight and the Isle of Man, and the Republic and Northern
Ireland, is the very porous border. It is not only fuel that comes over
the border, although illegal fuel smuggling has reduced. That is mainly
because there is no longer the financial incentive, due to the coming
together of the price of fuel in the Republic and in Northern Ireland,
which is now much closer than it was two, three or four years
ago.
Along with
fuel, there were massive amounts of cigarettes, both real and
counterfeit, and huge amounts of alcohol, particularly alcohol that had
been laundered and was dangerous—even more dangerous than the
alcohol most of us partake in. There were surprising things such as
washing powder, huge amounts of which were being brought across the
border and being sold on the cheap. It was not genuine. The boxes said
what it was, but there were dubious articles inside. There was a huge
traffic. There were also serious concerns about the amount of people
who were being brought across the border due to people trafficking and,
although not listed in the figures, there was a worry about illegal
immigration.
Those are
real issues that must be looked into. Those activities are happening
despite the fact that we have probably the best co-operation anywhere
in the world between the police force in Northern Ireland and the
people in the Garda. Bodies work together at every level. Security
bodies work together but this is still going on. The situation is very
different from that in the rest of the country, and it must be looked
at.
The issues
that have been raised are real, and we must look at the practicality of
what is being proposed. The Minister has been talking about specific
intelligence, but the response given in the House of Lords when the
Minister in the other place was pressed on what he meant and what would
happen in practice, was that we would
“target the odd
bus, minibus or taxi, because our experience has shown that those are
much more likely to be a threat”—[Official Report,
House of Lords, 1 April 2009; Vol. 709, c.
1100.] That
might work a little, but will it really get to grips with the problem?
If the border is as porous as many of us believe, how will we make a
real impact in practice? Unless the Minister intends to do this
seriously—and nobody is suggesting that we have total control of
the border—the reality is that we will waste our time. We need
to look at that.
An issue has
been raised by the hon. Member for Reigate about the possibility of
racial profiling. That causes real concern to those of us in the House
who are interested in human rights. The experience from Northern
Ireland, where ad hoc checks have been going on for some time, has seen
human rights bodies, from both sides of the border, raise concerns
about the fact that people are being profiled, stopped and asked
questions simply on the basis of the colour of their skin. That is
something that I hope this Administration will never support.
There is a
real need to do this and to do it right. However, in doing so, we must
ensure that we respect the fact that there are practicality issues and
that we get the balance right. However, we also have to be clear that
we do not want to undermine the confidence that we have built up during
the past decade among the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Not everyone who lives in Northern Ireland wants to be part of the
United Kingdom. A significant minority in that part of the world do not
want to be part of the United Kingdom and we have to respect that, as
well as respecting the views of the other
side. 12.30
pm
Paul
Rowen: In considering new legislation, it is incumbent on
all of us to weigh up the advantages and to consider how the proposals
presented in the Bill deliver on their stated purpose. From this
morning’s debate and the debate in the other place, it is clear
that the Government have patently failed to explain to us the benefits
of the changes to the common travel area.
The costs
have been clearly quantified—between £2.5
million and £4.5 million in increased staffing costs on border
controls and £43.5 million in loss of tourism—but the
Minister has patently failed to give us any quantifiable measure of the
reduction in reported asylum cases, illegal migrants or cross-border
crime. If the Minister cannot quantify what the benefits will be,
perhaps he would be good enough to give us the figures for the past ten
years in terms of asylum seekers who have travelled via Ireland or the
Channel Islands to the UK.
Mr.
Woolas: That is the
point.
Paul
Rowen: The point is that such figures cannot be
given.
Mr.
Woolas: It is precisely because we cannot give the
hon. Gentleman that figure that we want the powers to be able to give
it to him in future.
Paul
Rowen: When we are considering legislation that will lead
to increased costs to the Government and losses in terms of employment
and tourism, that is simply not good enough. There must be some sort of
figure. Both Ireland and the UK operate within the common travel area
and are outside the Schengen agreement. Indeed, as has been said, the
common travel area predates the Schengen agreement. We operate a common
border, so we rely on existing border controls in Ireland and the
Channel Islands to stop illegal migrants.
If the
Government are seriously saying that those border controls are
inadequate and do not stop illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, what
has the Minister been doing for the past few years in terms of working
with our Irish counterparts or the Governments in Guernsey and Jersey
to ensure that those borders are secure? That is clearly not the point.
This measure is a total overreaction to a problem. The Government are
trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer and unless the Minister can
quantify the size of the nut, such measures are clearly
unacceptable.
I speak as
someone who is half Irish and who spent most of my early years
travelling between Ireland and England every year. As the hon. Member
for Reigate said, the sorts of control on which the Minister is
insisting will completely destroy the common travel area. If he
seriously wants to do something about stopping illegal immigrants and
obtaining more information on the matter, there is a way around the
problem, which was outlined in the other place in an answer that Lord
West
gave: “Outside
the CTA reforms we are also considering other changes. Under Section 14
of the Police and Justice Act 2006, the police have the power to
require carriers to provide passenger data on specified domestic air
and sea routes. That power could be extended to cover routes between
Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report,
House of Lords, 4 March 2009; Vol. 708, c.
768-9) I
put it to the Minister that at far less cost to the travel industry and
to the convenience of travellers between Ireland, the Channel Islands
and Northern Ireland, the Government could implement section 14 of the
Police and Justice Act 2006. That, coupled with the establishment of a
unified border police, which is our party’s policy, as well as
Conservative policy, would provide the Government with the intelligence
they need to prevent people from entering this country if there is
reason to suggest that such people are doing so illegally. The controls
already exist in the common travel area, operated by the Irish
Government and the Channel Island Governments, to prevent illegal
immigrants. Those controls, and working with our partners in Ireland
and the Channel Islands and using the Criminal Justice Acts, would give
all the powers the Government need to resolve what is so far an
unquantifiable problem. If they cannot quantify it, one is tempted to
ask whether it really exists.
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Member for Ashford said in his opening
remarks in our first sitting that we would deal with the consensual
sections of the Bill first, and move to the more contentious ones next
week—that is, today. His prophesy has proved correct.
The hon.
Member for Reigate said that I failed to produce a convincing argument.
I put it to you, Sir Nicholas, that the hon. Gentleman has failed to
listen to a convincing argument. He has come here with a predetermined
view, so I shall try to repeat the main points of the
argument.
The hon.
Gentleman said that either he had and the other place had
misunderstood, or the Government had failed to put forward an argument.
My contention, quite genuine and heartfelt, is that the arguments being
put against our proposals are not fair because they address proposals
that we have not put. They are based on a misunderstanding, as Lord
West outlined in his closing remarks, in column 1111 of Hansard
in the other
place. I
shall dissect the main arguments. The accusation is made that we are
abolishing the common travel area. The CTA is about freedom of movement
for Irish nationals and British and UK citizens between those two
countries and the dependencies—the islands. The CTA remains in
place; that freedom of movement continues to exist. The power we are
seeking from the Houses of Parliament is the power to require
documentation for the purposes of proof of legitimacy of leave of entry
to Ireland or the UK, in order that we can identify third-country
nationals who do not have leave to remain. The power does not entitle
my officials to stop a legitimate person travelling. It requires the
person to produce identification; it does not give officials the power
to stop that freedom of movement if the person has leave to enter the
UK or the Republic of Ireland. The central principle of the CTA, which
has existed since 1920, remains. That is the first
point. Secondly,
the hon. Member for Reigate says that there is a gaping hole in our UK
border—the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic
of Ireland. His solution to that gaping hole is to fill it with
nothing, and instead to say that the problem I am trying to solve does
not actually exist. It is incumbent on me to show that it
does. Thirdly,
the hon. Gentleman says that the solution to the problem is to work
with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that the external border of the
CTA is protected by the electronic borders system. Yet his party
opposes that system—it is okay to have it in the Republic of
Ireland, but not to have it in the United
Kingdom.
Damian
Green: That is one of the many things the Minister
misquotes. He ignores the fact that his Government removed controls
between Britain and other EU countries in 1998. He also wilfully
misstates the position when he says that we oppose the e-borders
system. We oppose the fact that it is being implemented in the most
intrusive way possible on innocent British tourists, but we do not
oppose the principle of checking people in and
out.
Mr.
Woolas: Once again, we see the Conservative party trying
to reconcile its authoritarian instinct with its liberal appeal. The
hon. Gentleman said, although he was not prepared to put it in these
words, that he supports the electronic borders system. He then went on
to say that he opposes intrusion on the innocent. How am I to identify
the innocent? How am I to do that in practice, without the very limited
pieces of information that he calls on the Republic of Ireland to have,
but not the citizens of the United Kingdom? In attempting to square the
circle, the Conservative policy has become preposterous. The hon.
Gentleman requires the protection of the United Kingdom border to be
incumbent on an electronic borders system that contains information on
individuals travelling to the Republic of Ireland, when he is not
prepared to have that system for our own country. I cannot go to
Parliament with that proposition. It is not feasible.
Further, the
hon. Member for Reigate says that the proposal failed to be justified
in the other place. He misses out a central fact that Lord West put on
the record in summing up that debate, and which I used in my opening
remarks. That fact has been completely ignored in the speeches opposing
the proposals. I suspect that Members wrote those speeches before they
had heard the argument, which is that what we propose for our side of
the common travel area has been in place in the Republic of Ireland for
10 years. Lord West
stated: “The
Republic of Ireland introduced border controls in 1997 so that third
country nationals travelling from within the common travel
area”— the
United
Kingdom— “to
the republic, by air or sea, must present a passport or ID
card.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April
2009; Vol. 709, c.
1111.] That
measure has existed in the Republic of Ireland for third country
nationals for 10 years. The hon. Member for Rochdale says, “Oh,
I like to travel to Ireland”, and whips up the sentiment that
somehow the proposals will affect cultural and economic links between
the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom; they will not. The
Republic has been using those provisions for 10 years. The hon.
Gentleman calls for the protection of the United Kingdom borders to be
given over to the Republic of Ireland, but will not allow me to do what
the Republic of Ireland has been doing within the common travel area
since 1997.
| 
