Tom
Brake: I just wonder about the numbers. I know that it is
not possible to estimate at all accurately, but have any figures been
collated since the 2006 change that would give a rough indication of
what numbers we are talking
about?
Mr.
Woolas: I asked that question, and the difficulty is
apparent in the third of my four examples: the numbers who could have
used that right used a different route because of other connections.
That is why I do not want to mislead the hon.
Gentleman. In
short, the difficulty I have on a practical level is the potential for
complication, abuse and unfounded claims and the complicated measures
that I am sure hon.
Members can imagine would flow from that. We believe that we have
strategies that address the issues in all three new clauses, although
they do not go as far as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
would like. He would prefer a clean change in the law to go further
back than we went in the cases of the stateless and illegitimate
children and the Chagossians. I hope that I have explained my reasons.
I have tried to be sympathetic rather than dismissing these arguments.
We recognise that they are important, but we do not believe that they
are practical and in some cases we believe that there are some
technical
difficulties. Tom
Brake: I start by thanking the Minister for explaining in
some detail the Government’s position. It may have prevented
Labour Members from going off and doing more important things, but it
was worth getting some of the points that the Minister made on the
record, particularly the fact that discretion is available. The
Minister having reinforced that point, some of the cases may now be
resolved in a way that is favourable to the claimants. I will ensure
that he gets details of the individual case I
described. On
new clause 1, the Minister highlighted the fact that the FCO is in
discussion with the all-party group, principally around the issue of
resettlement rights. It is fair to let those deliberations continue and
the group could clearly take on the issue that I sought to raise about
citizenship if it wanted to. I understand what he was saying about
British citizenship claims from other categories of people with no
close connection to the UK who could see this as a precedent if the new
clause were
accepted. On
new clause 6, the Minister reinforced the point about discretion.
Without being able to make any categorical statements he seemed to
underline the fact that, although there are no guarantees about people
being allowed to get citizenship after a period of residence, there is
a high probability that the statelessness issue of children in that
case at least might be addressed. Finally, on new clause 7, the
Minister was right not to seek to document or quantify the number of
illegitimate children of British fathers. That would clearly be
extremely difficult to establish. One might be able to extrapolate from
any figures the Minister arrived at how many may have been fathered by
Members present in the Chamber today. We would not want to go down that
route. I
heard what the Minister said. I heard him underline the point about
discretion, and I heard his reference to the debates that are taking
place between the FCO and the all-party group on the Chagos islands.
Having received some reassurance that the Government are showing
flexibility, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by
leave, withdrawn.
New Clause
2Establishment
of UK Border Police
Force ‘(1) There shall be a
body corporate to be known as the UK Border Police
Force. (2) The UK Border Police
Force shall have the functions
of— (a) detecting and
removing illegal
overstayers; (b) protecting UK
borders; (c)
investigating suspected employers of illegal
immigrants;
(d) preventing and detecting human trafficking;
and (e) such other functions as
the Secretary of State may by order
determine. (3) Before making an
order under subsection (2)(e), the Secretary of State
shall— (a) publish
proposals; (b) consult members
of the public and stakeholders;
and (c) lay a draft before each
House of Parliament. (4) Bodies
to be consulted under subsection (3)(b) shall
include— (a) the
Metropolitan Police
Commissioner; (b)
representatives of the Association of Chief Police
Officers; (c)
the Director General of the Immigration and
Nationality Directorate; (d)
representatives of the Serious
Organised Crime Agency; (e)
representatives of the Association of Police
Authorities; and (f) such other
people as the Secretary of State may
determine.’.—(Damian
Green.) Brought
up, and read the First
time. 10.15
am
Damian
Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. This
debate has become a regular feature of immigration Bills, in that since
2007 Opposition Members have come to the conclusion that we need a
unified border police force in this country, and have sought to
persuade the Government of that in several immigration Bills in both
Houses. We seek to do so again. There was a good debate on the subject
in the other place. This is an idea whose time has come, and I sense
that it is an idea that the Government are inching towards but, for
reasons that I have never quite understood, will not actually
adopt. It
is unarguable that we ought to protect our borders better than we do.
Britain is a series of islands. We do not face the land border problems
faced by many other countries that are desirable targets for illegal
immigration and cross-border crime, but we ought to be able to defend
our borders better than we do. Our defences are not
adequate. The
new clause would be a significant step forward. We think that it would
be a more effective step forward than the one that the Government have
taken, which we do not oppose—that is, to merge some of the
functions of the UK Border Agency and Her Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs at the border—but we think it illogical that the police
should be the one body that is still doing all the work in a fragmented
way. Experience
of policing more widely shows us that specialisation of police services
is more effective, particularly in fighting the new types of crime that
have hit society in recent years. We therefore believe that the Bill as
it stands is a severe missed
opportunity. The
Minister himself admitted that our border controls are too lax. He
stated: “We
have, compared to other rich countries, been liberal in our border
controls.” I
believe that that is an accurate quote.
The Prime
Minister admitted that Britain is suffering from the failure to tackle
organised immigration crime. On 12 May, he
stated: “As
well as street gangs we are seeing increasingly sophisticated
international criminal networks which operate in the shadows but are
responsible for the worst kind of crimes: people trafficking, drugs,
and—as we saw with the Gooch gang in Manchester—gun
crime...we need to go
further”. In
that, I agree with
him. In
July 2007, the Prime Minister announced that he would introduce a new
border force. It involved a link-up between the UKBA and HMRC’s
customs operations. However, if that is as far as the Government will
go—that seems to be the case; it has certainly been the case
argued by Ministers up to now—it is not far enough or good
enough. Clearly,
the police are the body with the greatest expertise in fighting
cross-border crime. I am sure that the Minister, too, finds as he goes
around the country that the level of expertise is inherently patchy.
Constabularies such as Kent, which have borders and big ports to
control, develop expertise, but other police forces inevitably have
less to do with such things and so develop less
expertise. Protecting
our borders, and particularly fighting illegal immigration, cannot be
done only at UK borders. The Minister says continually that he wants to
export the border and do some border protection work overseas, which is
fine, but I urge him to recognise that protecting our borders and
combating illegal immigration, particularly human trafficking and
illegal working, also takes place inside our borders. If one wants to
be more effective in fighting illegal working and the sex trafficking
aspect of human trafficking, one must be more effective all over the
country, not just in our big cities. Some of the worst
immigration-related crimes take place in small towns and villages
throughout the country. A shocking change in human trafficking over the
past few years is that brothels with young women who are often duped
into coming here are not a feature just of our bigger cities and of our
inner cities. They crop up in many places. There have been some in my
constituency, which is a prosperous part of Kent where one would not
expect to find them, and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes
(Mr. Steen), who has done so much good work in
raising the consciousness of this place to human trafficking, says that
he finds the problem in Devon, and that it simply did not exist two or
three years ago. That is an
illustration of the wider point. We must do much better, and the
Government’s action so far is simply not enough. The facts speak
for themselves. The estimate of illegal immigration can never be
precise, but the most recent, which the Government carried out,
suggests that it was anything up to 500,000. The Minister will have
seen the report commissioned by the Mayor of London, which puts the
figure slightly higher at about 600,000. Clearly, it is likely to be in
that sort of ball park, and we all agree that we must cut
it. In
other crime areas, drug offences rose 68 per cent. between 1998-99 and
2007-08, and that is another big cross-border trade. We cannot tackle
crime effectively while our borders are so porous. We have debated
where illegal immigrants come from and the routes that they use to
become illegal immigrants. My best guess is that about 60 per cent.
arrive illegally. We know that apart from the appalling effect on
lives, the economic and social costs of people trafficking are more
than £1 billion a year, and it seems likely that the
regrettable increase in gun crime in this country is being fuelled by
the illegal supply of weapons into the UK, particularly from eastern
Europe. The
tasks facing a border police force are huge, and hugely important. Each
area, whether trafficking, drugs, guns or illegal immigration, would
justify the creation of such a force. The fact that we are facing such
growth in all four of those areas at the same time seems to be an
extremely strong argument for such a force. If the Government are
unwilling to accept the Opposition’s argument, perhaps they will
listen to others. Sir Chris Fox, when president of the Association of
Chief Police Officers, said on 25 March
2006: “Personally
I think we should have a Border Force. I think we should have a group
of people that are made up of Police Officers, Special Branch,
Immigration Officers, Customs, who have a total responsibility for all
our points of
entry.” I
may surprise the Minister by praying in aid Sir Ian
Blair— 10.25
am The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
