Paul
Rowen: I understand the Minister’s point, but will
he also confirm that the Irish Government do not require British
citizens to present a British passport when they enter Ireland? That is
where the big difference
lies.
Mr.
Woolas: The requirement is that British citizens must
prove that they are British. That is usually done with a passport, but
other documents are accepted, and that is what I propose. The fact that
the hon. Gentleman does not notice anything as he moves in and out of
the Republic of Ireland shows that my proposals would not cause the
practical disruption to the travelling public that other people fear.
In the real world, the carriers—the airlines and the sea
routes—want to have passports or another form of ID, precisely
so that people cannot bulk-buy cheap tickets and flog them down the
pub. That is what happens in the real
world.
Paul
Rowen: I understand the Minister’s point, but is
that situation not already covered by the Police and Justice Act 2006,
which requires the carrier to provide the information, without the
extra cost of between £2.5 million and £4.5
million that you
propose?
The
Chairman: Order. The Minister is proposing that, not
me. 12.45
pm
Mr.
Woolas: I suspect that you would agree with me, Sir
Nicholas. I
was interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point about the
read-across. Let us be clear, we are talking about immigration. I will
come to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon in a moment, as I wish to
agree strongly with what he has said.
At
present, if the Northern Ireland police force, the UK Border Agency,
the Garda, the French and the south American authorities have knowledge
of a route that has opened up into the UK through the Republic of
Ireland, we do not have the power under immigration law to stop at our
border a third-country national who has come into the Republic of
Ireland illegally. That means that we have to take that burden, even
when we know or have strong reason to believe that the person is acting
illegally under immigration law. We would have to watch them. The hon.
Member for Ashford looks puzzled, but it goes on every week of the
year. At the moment, if we are aware of some operation going on across
the land border, we do not have the power to stop people at the border,
although we do in other areas, as he
said. My
hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon is right. When the Home
Affairs Committee looked at gasoline smuggling, it called for powers to
stop people at the border based on specific intelligence-led
operations. That is exactly the point that I am making in relation
to immigration, but of course sentiment is being
whipped
up.
The
Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Member for Blaydon
intervenes, I feel that I must put on the record that, whatever
personal views I hold, in the Chair I am scrupulously impartial and
will always be
so.
Mr.
Anderson: I want to confirm what the Minister said with
regard to travelling not just to the Republic of Ireland, where people
have to travel with a passport. When we were travelling from Newcastle
to Belfast, we were advised to take our passports with us, even though
Northern Ireland is within the United
Kingdom. I
am glad that the Minister reminded me about the Home Affairs Committee.
During our discussions in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee about
the size of the problems across the border faced by the Serious
Organised Crime Agency, a suggestion was advanced by Northern Ireland
Members that we bring the rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland
down to that in the Republic. That was supported by Conservative
members of the Committee, which shows how big the issue
is.
Mr.
Woolas: My hon. Friend makes an important point and brings
pragmatic experience to
bear. I
shall turn quickly to the various examples I was asked about. This is
not some academic debate. We have not put up some patsy because we want
to have a controversial debate; it is an attempt to strengthen our
border. I
must be fair to Committee members. A number of questions were asked, so
I shall try to answer them. It is already an offence under the 1971 Act
to refuse to provide documents without reasonable excuse. We have made
it clear that we will not require documents on the land border or from
Crown dependencies, so there would be reasonable excuse in such
cases. The
hon. Member for Reigate asked about the progress made with Jersey. We
have ongoing discussions on the memorandum of understanding with the
other islands. There was a meeting yesterday. We are inviting Jersey to
take part in those discussions, so that the memorandum
of understanding on the practices and practical
arrangements can be agreed, and we hope that Jersey
responds, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the current
position. A
point was made about people trafficking. There are a number of
instances when, with the limited powers we have already, we have
apprehended people, which backs up the points I am making. I will give
Committee members some intelligence and information. To refer to a
question put earlier, there are approximately 15.4 million
passenger movements between the Republic of Ireland and the United
Kingdom and the Crown dependencies by air and sea. I acknowledge that
it is a huge
issue. On
the exploitation of illegal immigration, we have been carrying out
pilot studies on the powers. Just to give Committee members some
snapshots, in one week in January 2007, 158 offenders who did not
qualify for entry to the UK were identified at Belfast, Londonderry,
Dublin, Holyhead, Liverpool airport and Rosslare port. The north-west
port team refused eight passengers further leave to enter on one day,
in the operation we conducted in Holyhead in April 2009. Those are
examples of the daily bread and butter work of the UKBA, in identifying
third party nationals who are abusing that route.
A number of
assurances have been sought about the application of equal rights,
about discrimination and so on. Of course, we are committed to the
application of equal rights and we are banned by law from
discriminating. That approach is adopted across the ports and airports
of the UK and indeed across our juxtaposed controls in France and
Belgium.
I think I
have answered the questions about the Crown dependencies in relation to
Jersey. We are seeking to get memorandums of understanding. Of course,
our main concern is the Republic of Ireland, and I hope that I have put
forward convincing arguments that the CTA is being maintained. I
believe that the strength of feeling on the issue reflects a
misunderstanding and that is the point that the change to the CTA is
addressing. The change is not addressing the right of movement of
people with legitimate right to be in the Republic of Ireland or the
UK, but of third-country non-EEA nationals who do not have that
right.
Our
contention, as Lord West outlined in the other place, is that there is
a loophole in our border controls. There is a suggestion that we should
rely exclusively on co-operation with the Republic of Ireland, but if I
were to suggest that in relation to, say, France, a country with which
we also have good relationships, I suspect that I would not remain the
Minister for Borders and Immigration much longer. I certainly will not
do so for much longer if I do not draw my remarks to a conclusion,
because the Government Whip, my hon. Friend to my right, is urging me
to allow the Committee to make its decision.
I have put my
argument, I have answered the questions and I hope that the Committee
supports
me. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
3]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 51
disagreed
to.
Clause
52Restriction
on
Studies
Damian
Green: I beg to move amendment 57, in
clause 52, page 43, line 28, at
beginning insert ‘where
leave is granted for the purpose of studies in the United
Kingdom,’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following:
Amendment 58,
in
clause 52, page 43, line 29, at
end insert— ‘(ib) a
condition restricting his studies to an education institution
registered as a sponsor of non-EU
nationals. (1A) An educational
institution registered as a sponsor of non-EU nationals must be defined
as a University, Institute, Royal College or College under the Company
and Business Names Regulations 1981 (S.I.
1981/1685).’. New
clause 10—Restriction on studies: further
definition ‘(1) The Company and
Business Names Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1685) are amended
by inserting “College” in column (1) of the
Schedule. (2) Section 2(1)(b)
of the Business Names Act 1985 (c.7) does not apply to the carrying on
of the business under a name which includes the word
“college” by a
person— (a) to whom the
business is transferred on or after the date on which section 52 came
into force; and (b) who carries
on the business under the name which was its lawful business name and
immediately before that
transfer, during the twelve
months beginning with the date of the
transfer. (3) Section 2(1)(b)
of the Business Names Act 1985 (c.7) shall not apply to the carrying on
of the business under a name which includes a word
“college” by a person
who— (a) carried on that
business immediately before the date on which section 52 came into
force; and (b) continues to
carry it on under the name which immediately before that date was its
lawful
name.’.
Damian
Green: These are fast-moving times and later in my remarks
I shall come to what the new Further Education Minister said to the
Select Committee on Home Affairs this morning, as I have been apprised
of that. I am delighted that the Government are thinking along the same
lines as one of our amendments—as they should be, of course,
with all our amendments. The issue of student visas is clearly hugely
important, as the Minister has acknowledged. There have been several
scandals in recent years. In a sense it is hardly surprising.
There are two
amendments and a new clause in the group, and I shall divide the group
in two: amendment 57 deals with one issue, and amendment 58
and new clause 10
deal with another. However, they have a common background, which is
worth setting out, as it concerns numbers, and the sheer scale of
potential abuse of the
system. Between
2004 and 2008 nearly 825,000 student visas were issued, and in 2007
alone 358,000 non-EEA students were admitted to the UK. That is an
increase of 16 per cent. on the previous year. Student cases were the
largest group of after-entry visa decisions in 2007, accounting for 37
per cent. of the total number of about 145,000 people. In that context
it is interesting to see what percentage were successful, and the
answer for 2006 was 66 per cent. of applicants for student visas. An
estimate from Universities UK—the Minister may have better
figures at his disposal—is that 25 per cent. of appeals against
the initial decision are successful. That suggests that there are
significant problems in the entry clearance
system. I
do not think that there will be any division in the Committee about the
idea that we are all supportive of foreign students; certainly UK
universities are, not least because of the revenue that those students
bring, but we are also supportive of them as a country. Conservative
MPs often make the point that one purpose—perhaps the main
one—of the immigration system should be to enable Britain to
attract its fair share, or perhaps more than its fair share, of the
brightest and best from around the world, to support and promote our
economic growth.
Clearly, the
universities play an extremely large part in that, by introducing some
of the brightest students from around the world to this country, a
proportion of whom will inevitably want to make their life here. Even
without that longer-term advantage, the Home Office estimates that in
2007 international students contributed £8.5 billion to the UK
economy each year. That is a very positive background against which the
many serious problems that emerge need to be addressed.
The Minister
has described the student visa system as the Achilles heel of the
immigration system. [Interruption.] He says that
he was talking about the old system. He is in the throes of introducing
a new one, which may or may not improve it, but he and I would
certainly agree that the system that he describes as the old
one—which is of course the one he and his predecessors have
operated for the past 12 years—is the Achilles heel of the
immigration
system.
The
Chairman: Order. Before I adjourn the Committee until four
o’clock this afternoon, I congratulate hon. Members on the
quality of the debate on clause 51. It was very interesting to be in
the
Chair. 1
pm
The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
