[back to previous text]

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.
 
Previous Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 17 June 2009