FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO COMMON TRAVEL AREA (Hansard, 19 October 1971)

§ Mr. Carlisle
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As the House knows, under Clause I travel within what is known as the common travel area, that is the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland, is not subject to control, and a person arriving from within the common travel area does 609 not require leave to enter the United Kingdom.
That general statement in Clause 1(3) is subject to the exception in Clause 9, as now amended in the other place. The effect of amending Clause 9(4) is to provide that a person who is not patrial may not, by virtue of Clause 1(3), enter the United Kingdom without leave on a local journey from within the common travel area, which he otherwise would be able to do, if he is on arrival in the United Kingdom given written notice by an immigration officer stating that he is refused leave to enter because the Secretary of State has issued directions accordingly on the ground that the person's exclusion is conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security.
Power to do this exists at the moment under Section 2(4)(c) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, under which one can refuse admission to a Commonwealth or Irish citizen if his admission would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be contrary to the interests of national security. However, uncontrolled travel within the common travel area under the existing law—this is why one can use the 1962 Act—was merely a matter of administrative arrangement, and under the present Bill the position is different in that Clause 1(3) provides for travel within the common travel area to be free of control.
The Amendment will, therefore, provide statutorily the power which has previously existed under Section 2(4)(c). If a person who is not patrial, whether he be alien, Commonwealth citizen or citizen of the Republic of Ireland, comes to the United Kingdom, whether from Ireland, from one of the Channel Islands or from the Isle of Man, the Home Secretary will have the power to exclude him, which he regards as necessary, but only on the basis that he believes that that person's exclusion is conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security.

§ Mr. Peter Archer
This is a serious incursion into what was previously thought to be, and was obviously throughout the progress of the Bill and all our discussions believed to be, the general principle that there should be free travel within the common travel area. I take the point made by the Under-Secretary of 610 State that there was provision under the 1962 Act for incursions into that principle, but it was nevertheless a principle which all of us thought existed.
The Amendment provides that people within the common travel area may be refused admission on non-conducive grounds. I regard it as a serious incursion, and I imagine that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that. I appreciate the reasons for it, and I acknowledge that the particular occasion which highlighted the particular necessity for it was the fairly recent matter concerning a member, or an alleged member, of the I.R.A.
I accept, and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends accept, the need for controlling the movement of people across the Border between Northern Ireland and Eire, or, possibly, from Eire into Great Britain. Obviously, one needs to be able to take account of genuine threats to law and order. But may we be told whether there have been consultations with the Government of Eire about this? Obviously, they are concerned. Perhaps they would have had alternative suggestions for dealing with the problem. We do not know whether there have been any consultations, and we should like to know what, if anything, has been said to the Government of Eire and what their views are.

§ Mr. Carlisle
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) for what he has said about the Amendment and his appreciation of the reason why it was necessary to bring it in at a late stage. I can tell him that assurances are being given to the Government of the Republic of Ireland to the effect that there is no intention of introducing any general control over travel within the common travel area. One envisages this being used only in the rare type of case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.

§ Mr. Peter Archer
With respect, that does not quite answer my question. I asked whether there had been consultations. There is a real difference between sending a message of assurance and having a proper discussion.

§ Mr. Carlisle
One cannot have an assurance without consultation. It all depends what one means by the word 611 "consultation". There must be two sides to consultations; one must give and the other receive. I am told that this information has been conveyed in the form of assurances to the Government of the Republic.