HL Deb 21 June 2002 vol 636 cc1035-7

2.12 p.m.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Immigration (Entry Otherwise than by Sea or Air) Order 2002.

This is a small and somewhat technical measure. It relates to people travelling to the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland across the land border between the Republic and Northern Ireland who require leave to enter.

Although it applies both to arriving passengers and illegal entrants, its main effect will be in relation to the latter. We have no plans to set up immigration controls on the border. It is a technical measure; the power to set removal directions in respect of an arriving passenger who is refused leave to enter or an illegal entrant as set out in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. In either case there is power to give directions to the captain, owners or agents of the ship or aircraft in which the person to be removed arrived in the UK.

There is a fallback position that allows directions to be given to the owners or agents of any other ship or aircraft where directions might be given to the captain, owners or agents of the carrying vessel, but the Secretary of State concludes that this is not practicable or that they would be ineffective. However, that fallback position assumes that the original arrival in the UK was by ship or aircraft. If there was no ship or aircraft involved in the first place, there can be no captain, owners or agents. Consequently, it would be impossible to give them any instructions to remove someone and this residual power to remove cannot apply.

That does not mean that someone who enters the UK illegally across this border is immune from removal; it simply means that they cannot be removed as an illegal entrant. Instead, we have to go through the curious process of granting them leave to remain for a short period. At the end of that time, unless they apply for further leave, they become overstayers and liable to removal as such. In the case of overstayers, removal directions do not refer back to the original arrival, so this problem does not arise.

However, that procedure is not satisfactory. First, it seems illogical, to put it mildly, to grant someone leave to remain in order to be able to remove them. Secondly, and more importantly, once they have that leave, they are no longer liable to detention under the Immigration Act powers and have the opportunity to disappear altogether.

That gap in our removal powers has existed for a great many years. I have no evidence that it has been widely abused, but it would be undesirable to allow it to continue. The order closes the loophole by providing that where someone who requires leave to enter the United Kingdom or who is the subject of a deportation order has entered or is seeking to enter the UK from the Republic of Ireland otherwise than by ship or aircraft, the relevant parts of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act apply to them in a modified form, allowing removal directions to be given immediately. The cost of such removals will be borne by the Secretary of State. In theory, such directions could be given in respect of an arriving passenger. In practice, they are more likely to be given in respect of people who have entered illegally. In the case of the former, the order will apply to passengers arriving on or after the date on which the order is made. In the case of illegal entrants, it will apply irrespective of the date of entry. The order does not affect anyone's immigration status. Those who have come in illegally by this route are already illegal entrants and will continue to be so. The difference is that if the order is approved it will be possible to deal with them as such. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, immigration is a highly controversial issue and no doubt we shall have a good deal of controversy in your Lordships' House in the next few weeks. However, we accept that the order is a technical matter that closes certain loopholes to make the procedure technically more logical. We therefore do not propose to object to it.

Viscount Bridgeman

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The order clearly closes a loophole and we have no objection to it.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, I would not normally be here at this time on a Friday, but it was drawn to my attention during the week that there could be ramifications arising from the order that have not yet been explained. The Minister will be aware how complicated Northern Ireland affairs can be, as he has been dealing with them for a number of years. In the centre of Belfast and other parts of the city, the Middle East problem has spilt over. In so-called republican areas, all you can see is the whole place festooned with Palestinian flags, while the loyalist areas are festooned with Israeli flags.

Until two or three weeks ago people laughed at this. They thought that it was not too serious—it was just one tribe showing its loyalty to a particular cause. However, I was reminded during the week that two of the Palestinians—gentlemen, persons, terrorists or whatever they were called—who were in the Church of the Nativity and were released under an international agreement by the Israeli forces were given sanctuary in the Republic of Ireland. I understand that they are still there. There is no question of their removal or deportation.

Given the sensitivity of the Northern Ireland problem, are those two individuals to be restricted to the territory of the Republic of Ireland or would they be free to cross the border into Northern Ireland? One can readily see that if they were allowed into Northern Ireland—in other words, into the United Kingdom—their presence could be exploited by all sorts of paramilitary groups on one side or the other.

I do not want to be controversial, but I should like the Minister to define the status of those two people who were in the Church of the Nativity during the siege and are now in the Republic of Ireland by international agreement. Would they be free to come into Northern Ireland? If they came in, would they be deported as undesirables? I hope that it does not happen, but the presence in Northern Ireland of one or both of those individuals could be exploited by the various warring elements in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister explain what will be the status of those people? Will they be allowed into Northern Ireland? Would the Government of the Republic have anything to say on the matter or would it be this Government which would determine whether or not they were acceptable?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I do not know the details of the case that my noble friend has referred to. But this order does not affect the position. It is trying to create a procedure which makes it easier to remove illegal entrants. I do not know the position as regards the people to whom the noble Lord referred. They will be subject to immigration control. Leave would be required for them to enter the United Kingdom and if they sought permission, no doubt the points raised by the noble Lord would be taken into account. It would be up to the United Kingdom Government to decide whether those men should be given leave to enter. But I make it clear that this order does not affect the matter either way.

On Question, Motion agreed to.