HC Deb 27 May 1993 vol 225 cc1072-9

1 pm

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)

Thank you for allowing me to raise this subject today, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to say that much has happened since I first sought to initiate the debate. There has been a considerable amount of contact between immigration department officials, senior officials and the management at Prestwick airport and that has been paralleled by my discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister. I thank my hon. Friend for agreeing to reply to the debate. Having listened to his comments in a previous debate, I congratulate him both on his productivity and on his efficiency: I understand that this is the third debate to which he has replied today.

I should also like to thank my hon. Friend at this early stage for his recognition of the serious implications of the incident at Prestwick last week—a recognition of the importance of commitments made and which, it has to be said, failed at the first time of asking.

The incident to which I refer occurred last Thursday, 20 May. An aircraft carrying 180 passengers—customers —from the United States was diverted to Prestwick airport. It was two hours before immigration officials dealt with the first passenger. It took immigration officials one and a half hours to get from Glasgow to Prestwick whereas others who were advised of the diversion arrived in just over 40 minutes. Clearly, something was seriously wrong.

A doctor who had crossed the Atlantic for a 9 o'clock meeting in Glasgow was clearing immigration at Prestwick at that time—despite special arrangements made some time before, which failed to be recognised by staff in the Glasgow immigration office. The whole thing was a shambles. Those visitors to Scotland were not only inconvenienced but disillusioned. Business men were delayed and all concerned regarded the incident as a bad advertisement.

To understand the incident, we must review the history of Prestwick airport. Before March 1990, Prestwick had gateway status: it was the gateway to Scotland from across the Atlantic, and from the United States and Canada in particular. At that time, there was a monopoly, albeit a monopoly that was in the ownership of the British Airports Authority, which also held monopolies over other central belt airports—at Glasgow and Edinburgh. Before March 1990 there was considerable passenger throughput at Prestwick and a full customs and immigration service was in operation.

On 6 March 1990, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Parkinson, who visited my constituency last week and was warmly welcomed, announced the inevitable: an end to Prestwick's gateway status following a court judgment in a case brought by Air 2000 in May 1989. The then Secretary of State suggested that that action was taken because competition must be allowed to flourish. I approved of that. But that competitiveness has depended to a degree on Government services and on Government regulations to which I shall refer later.

At the time of that announcement, the then Transport Secretary said that Prestwick had to be allowed to compete fairly. As I have said, the BAA already owned Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. Inevitably with common ownership, there had to be rationalisation. Prestwick did lose out in the short term with respect to passenger transport as expected. It lost out with regard to transatlantic scheduled flights and charters. I believe that that might well be only in the short term and I believe that the charter operators realise that.

To be fair, the BAA recognised the freight potential of Prestwick, but it did not maximise the opportunities. I am pleased to say that the circumstances changed again in April 1992 when Prestwick international airport, under the ownership of PIK Holdings Ltd., took over. That company was a combination of individuals involved in local and international business and local authority and enterprise company activities.

Since then, that company has enthusiastically and determinedly taken steps to boost freight business in particular and to make inroads into passenger transport. In the latter case, there has been some success with services established to Jersey and to Viga in the former USSR. There are only glimmers of prospects for the future.

The good news is that the airport is in profit, although it has been stunted given the excellent facilities that currently exist. Those facilities are enhanced by unusually good weather conditions. Prestwick is always open when other nearby airports are closed. For whatever reason, fog does not settle over Prestwick airport and that is a very important consideration. It gives Prestwick a major status as a diversion airport. That means that the airport must man all its services to cope at short notice with diversions.

On Thursday 20 May, PIK certainly coped admirably, but with one exception. As I said earlier, it took one hour and 30 minutes for immigration personnel to get on site at Prestwick. In February of this year, the full-time presence of immigration services at Prestwick was withdrawn. In February and March, I received assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister and from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that all would be well when diversions occurred and that immigration services would be on site within the hour.

The following points were pledged. First, that scheduled and charter flights would be covered. I have no complaints about that particular aspect. Secondly, that business and general air traffic passengers could be dealt with by remote. To date, I cannot complain about that.

However, we then come to diversion flights which, I was assured, would receive top priority treatment with immigration officers on site within the hour; an early morning call by an immigration officer on a daily basis to confirm that there were no diversions liable at the transatlantic peak arrival period of 7 am; and that a remote information transfer system, dependent on electronic mail and fax facilities, would ensure specific passenger needs would be met as they arose.

On 20 May every category failed the test. On learning of that early in the morning of 21 May, I contacted the Home Office and I pay tribute to the Home Office civil servant who responded most positively. On Monday and Tuesday, I had meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister. At the same time in Prestwick, senior officials met the airport management. I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for his extremely positive interest and response. A mutually satisfactory agreement has been reached. While it perhaps falls short of a full day time immigration service 365 days per year—which would be ideal but not sound in economic terms—it is not justified, given current passenger usage.

We have reached agreement on the methods by which the needs of the airport can be met to cover diversions. It will ensure a daily presence at the critical times and that is most important. It goes further in an innovative and imaginative way with regard to the use of personnel from Customs and Excise for clearing general traffic at the airport. That says a lot for the co-operation between Government Departments and the flexibility and attitudes of staff at Prestwick for whom I have the highest regard.

While eagerly awaiting my hon. Friend the Minister's comments on these issues, I take this opportunity to seek his much-appreciated support and assistance. In that regard, I refer to freight use at Prestwick airport. In Scotland, the key industry is the electronics industry. Major companies from across the international scene participate in the silica glen, as it is known. IBM, Digital, Compaq, Motorola and Prestwick Circuits are just a few. They have a key requirement for international trade. They must get components in quickly and on schedule and get added-value products out. That means jobs in Scotland and a boost to Scotland's economy and—as part of the Union—the United Kingdom economy. It is not simply value for the companies but provides such services for the nation.

Prestwick has the opportunity to play a vital role in the European Community and beyond. Currently, we lose opportunities because of restrictive rules set by the United Kingdom Government. I am aware that major international electronic companies scratch their heads when they realise that freight liners flying into Prestwick can deliver components but cannot pick up products to distribute elsewhere, even though it is on the aircraft's run. There is something wrong with that. Of course, I am referring to the issue of fifth freedom rights.

I would be obliged if my hon. Friend will pass on my comments to our mutually right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and suggest that he have a chat with the United States Transport Secretary, Frederico Fena, about a true open-skies policy in the United Kingdom, the United States and beyond. Such a policy should be imposed on Prestwick for advantage in the longer term. If the United Kingdom and the United States take that step, other nations will follow. That would be of great advantage to the United Kingdom manufacturers, United Kingdom airlines and, most importantly, Prestwick airport.

If my hon. Friend passes on those thoughts, he will be a true friend of Prestwick. He has certainly advanced the interests of Prestwick in the past few days. Recently, Prestwick has been boosted by the Government's actions and, to some degree, local authority actions. There have been moves to upgrade access to Prestwick with regard to the A77 and M8 links and the M77 projections for the future. Moves are being made which could well result in a rail halt at Prestwick and trunk road status for the A70, improving access to Prestwick still further.

There is an innovative idea to provide combined air and rail tickets for those who use Prestwick airport. I understand that the idea is unique in the world. We do not want Government regulation which stops such good ideas being used to Prestwick's advantage. I remind my hon. Friend again that fifth freedom rights and an end to current restrictions would certainly give Prestwick and the United Kingdom trade a great boost.

The message that I hope to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister is a clear statement which all airlines can sign on to that Prestwick is open for business—quality business —and that there will be no future delays as a result of Government agency problems. Sadly, when I leave the Chamber today I will fly back to Glasgow. I shall be happy to return to Scotland, but I look forward to the day when I can fly from London to Prestwick airport. I look forward to my hon. Friend's words.

1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle)

With the leave of the House, I shall speak for the third time in today's debates. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on raising this important subject today. I thank him for his strong and articulate advocacy of the interests of Prestwick airport and his general constituency interests. In the past year or so he has represented his constituency interests on several occasions in the most powerful and constructive fashion.

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the immigration service and officials in the Home Department. I accept entirely his constructive criticism of the event which he outlined, which I shall deal with in a moment. Before I do so, I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have noted carefully what my hon. Friend has had to say.

It may be helpful if I first explain the background to the decision to withdraw the permanent immigration service presence from Prestwick airport and provide immigration control coverage for that airport from Glasgow airport instead. Over the years, in particular since Glasgow airport was opened to transatlantic flights, there has been a decline in the volume of traffic at Prestwick.

As my hon. Friend reminded me, the management of Prestwick airport has many plans to increase the traffic at Prestwick, but in recent years the volume has declined. For example, in 1988 more than 162,000 passengers arrived at Prestwick. Last year that number was just fewer than 10,000, of which more than 7,000 were European Community nationals. For some time, the only traffic has been business or military, apart from the occasional diversion of scheduled flights from other airports, which my hon. Friend described. Hardly any of the passengers on those flights need extensive examination under the terms of the Immigration Act 1988.

The immigration service had run down staff levels at Prestwick over a period, but the point was reached at which the three immigration officers and one chief immigration officer who remained were spending little time on passenger work. The immigration service has a duty to provide its customers with an efficient service, but also a responsibility, of which I am mindful, to employ its resources in the most efficient manner.

The levels of passenger traffic simply did not justify the retention of a permanent immigration presence at Prestwick, at least for the time being. PIK's traffic forecasts did not point to any significant increase in the immediate future. The immigration service could not justify the retention of four staff to deal with what amounted to one arriving and two embarking on commercial services a week.

The decision was therefore taken earlier this year, as my hon. Friend reminded the House, to transfer the four officers to the immigration office at Glasgow airport, which carries out a greater volume and range of immigration work, and provide immigration coverage for Prestwick from that office. As my hon. Friend is aware, that decision does not affect Prestwick's status as a designated airport under the Immigration Act 1971. That status means that the immigration service is bound to provide coverage and it has assured PIK that regular services will be covered. I should mention that Prestwick is not the only designated port of entry in this country where the immigration service does not maintain a permanent presence. Southampton, Liverpool and Teesside airports are all designated ports at which immigration cover is provided from neighbouring offices. It depends on the regular volume of traffic.

Mr. Gallie

I accept what my hon. Friend says, but none of those airports has the diversionary role of Prestwick.

Mr. Wardle

My hon. Friend has anticipated precisely where I have reached in my speech.

I am aware of Prestwick's role as a diversionary airport. The majority of diversionary traffic which it receives is from Glasgow. Last year only six flights were diverted to Prestwick from either Heathrow or Gatwick. Prestwick was not previously staffed on a 24-hour basis and many diversions arrive out of hours. It is, of course, difficult to cater for infrequent and unpredictable occurrences. Not all diversions require the physical attendance of an immigration officer, but when required, the immigration service promises that an officer or officers will be sent as quickly as possible.

On the morning of 20 May the immigration service at Glasgow was first notified by PIK of the possible diversion of two wide-bodied aircraft from Glasgow at one minute past 7 in the morning. At quarter past 7, it received confirmation that flight NW34 from Boston would divert to Prestwick. Two immigration officers were immediately despatched by road to Prestwick.

The shortest distance between Glasgow and Prestwick is about 35 road miles, which normally takes, with reasonable driving conditions, about an hour. The officers expected poor traffic conditions and fog on the usual route, with which my hon. Friend will be familiar, and accordingly decided that, on balance, they would be quicker and safer to take the longer coastal route. Unfortunately, that assessment proved to be wrong and their journey was hampered by heavy local traffic. They did not arrive at Prestwick until shortly before 9 o'clock when they immediately began clearance of the flight's passengers. Clearance was completed by 9.30 am.

I understand that, initially, the passengers were kept on board the aircraft awaiting the arrival of the immigration officers. The Northwest Airlines station manager has confirmed that he boarded the aircraft as soon as it came on stand at Prestwick and announced to the passengers that he intended to keep them on board. He took that initial decision because he still had to assess whether to disembark at Prestwick or part refuel and continue to Glasgow. He also wished to confirm, the immigration position. At no point did the immigration service suggest that the passengers should be held on board the aircraft.

At 8.40 am an officer from PIK telephoned to complain that the immigration officers had not yet arrived. He asked if he was expected to continue holding the passengers on board the aircraft. He was advised that there was no need for this and that the passengers could disembark, provided that they were kept airside until seen by an immigration officer. That practice has been followed on previous occasions, when passengers were able to wait in comfort in a transit lounge, until the immigration service was ready to act.

I regret that the passengers on NW34 were delayed longer than would normally be expected in the circumstances. The immigration service is reviewing its procedures for responding to diversions in future. The Glasgow office car is to be fitted with a radio link. Meanwhile, an instruction has been issued to all staff travelling to Prestwick to take a mobile telephone. Officers have also been instructed to report immediately any delay. Communications will, therefore, improve.

The immigration service has always made it clear that it cannot guarantee immediate attendance at Prestwick for diverting flights without at least some advance notice, but the improvements should ensure that the system is better managed and reduce the scope for error. I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern, however, that the level of immigration coverage at Prestwick should not be detrimental to the airport's development.

I am pleased to say that there have been some useful discussions this week between the immigration service and senior representatives of PIK which should ensure prompt coverage of diverted flights arriving in the early morning, the usual time of arrival for flights diverted from the trans-Atlantic routes, and generally improved communications, with the aim of securing a reasonable level of service with a reasonable level of resources. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept this explanation and apology for what happened.

This is a good opportunity to make some more general remarks about the immigration service. It is an encouraging sign of economic recovery that the number of passengers arriving at our ports and airports has increased substantially in the past year. I am now taking a countrywide view in which I know that my hon.Friend will be interested. That must be good news for Prestwick airport and for all other airports and seaports as well as the airlines and ferry companies which operate the services.

The growth is significant. Just over 54 million passengers arrived in the United Kingdom last year compared with some 46 million in 1991, an increase of about 16 per cent. Heathrow remains by far the busiest international airport in the world and Gatwick is the third largest. The position of the United Kingdom as a destination for travellers, a base for overseas business men and a hub for airline transfer traffic to destinations all over the world is of great economic importance and a matter in which we should take real pride.

The debate reminds us that it is not only London and the south-east that are welcoming overseas visitors. Airports in other parts of the United Kingdom are expanding and adapting to provide more and better services. Scotland has seen substantial growth in traffic, Birmingham opened a second terminal a couple of years ago and Manchester opened a splendid second terminal in only March this year which I look forward to visiting shortly. We all wish such enterprises well. They provide jobs, status and prosperity to the local area and bring in much needed overseas business.

It is particularly encouraging to note that the number of foreign visitors to the United Kingdom is increasing rapidly. There were some 6.5 million foreign visitors to Britain last year compared with 5.7 million in 1991. That figure does not include EC nationals who are not counted by category but who might well double the figure of 6.5 million. Tourism and leisure is Britain's largest industry, employing 10 per cent. of our entire work force. How important it is then that all concerned should make every effort to attract visitors here.

At a time when we are facing increasing competition in tourism from many other countries it is essential that the immigration service can respond to the upturn in passenger numbers. The travelling public must be given a high quality of service but, at the same time, we must ensure that nothing is done to diminish the effectiveness of our controls against illegal immigration.

I also hope that hon. Members who have taken their cars to the continent, returning through Dover's eastern docks, will be aware that the world's busiest international ferry terminal shows a marked improvement in the time taken for people to pass through immigration control. The introduction of car channelling at Dover's eastern docks last year, based on EC and non-EC passport lanes, resulted in only 2 per cent. of all arriving cars waiting more than six minutes, whereas during the same summer peak period in the previous year 10 per cent. of all cars were waiting for more than 18 minutes. That is a considerable achievement on which I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the local immigration staff and managers.

The processing rate at Dover can now reach 1,000 cars an hour. It is all the more creditable that immigration officers managed at the same time to detect more forged documents in all that traffic and in the first quarter of 1993, in the south-east district, they detected 215 forged documents which were presented at immigration control. That is an increase of 25 per cent. over the same period last year. It is essential to preserve the effectiveness of our immigration controls, whether at sea ports or at airports, at the same time as improving their efficiency.

Improvements in the quality of service offered by the immigration service are not confined to reducing delays at airports and ports. I am pleased to be able to report that the public inquiry office in Glasgow, which deals with applications for extension of stay, was reopened last month. That is another subject on which my hon. Friend has made representations to me in the House.

The office was closed for some time, but improvements were made to the premises and it is open again—providing an improved service to customers, with staff specially recruited for the work. I hope that that development will be welcomed by people in Scotland, and I look forward to seeing that facility myself fairly soon.