Paul Rowen (Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 14, page 44, line 4, leave out clause 50.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 46, in clause 59, page 47, line 31, leave out '50 (Common Travel Area),'.

Amendment 47, in schedule, page 50, leave out lines 4 to 6.

Paul Rowen (Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

Amendment 14 would remove clause 50, which deals with the common travel area. I understand that the Minister is to make a statement on this matter, so I shall sit down to hear the good news.

Crispin Blunt (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Reigate, Conservative)

I had planned to gild the lily of my arguments in Committee, which were sadly rejected— [ Interruption. ]

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker)

Order. There are far too many private conversations going on in the Chamber. Will Members who are not wishing to listen or participate please either leave or keep their conversations low?

Crispin Blunt (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Reigate, Conservative)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, I had planned to gild the lily of the arguments that I made in Committee, which were sadly rejected by the Government. Given the lateness of the hour and the amount of time left for this debate, it would probably be inappropriate to restate things. I am afraid that right hon. and hon. Members who want to see the arguments in detail will have to look at the Committee Hansard . I do not think that the arguments on either side have changed substantially. The Government have had a month to reflect on them, and I hope that we will get a different answer today. I look forward to listening to the Minister reply to the debate.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I thank the hon. Members for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) for their constructive attitude. Let me explain where we are.

The Government are disappointed, as am I, that we have not been able to persuade the other place of the need for the clause. We think that the UK's security requires some amendments to the common travel area. [ Interruption. ] This is my statement, which I have had typed up.

I believe that the Committee Hansard shows that the argument was won by the Government, although it is clear that the hon. Member for Reigate does not think so. As I argued there, and as my noble Friend Lord West has argued in the other place, we think that this issue is important. For example, just one week of activity at a limited number of UK ports revealed 158 immigration offences via the CTA.

Paul Rowen (Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

Section 14 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 would require carriers to provide information on travellers who were not holding a UK or Irish passport. Does he agree that if that were implemented, it would be a much simpler way of securing our borders?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

We believe that that is part of the answer. Implicit in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is an acceptance that there is an issue that needs to be addressed, and I am grateful to him for that. There is no miracle cure to the problem. We believe that the limited and proportionate measure that we put forward would make a difference, but that is for the future. The fact is that we have to face some hard and immediate truths.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

Travellers from Northern Ireland are UK citizens, but what the measure that the Minister describes as "limited and proportionate" would mean that all of them would be treated as non-UK citizens, even when they travel within the UK. Leaving aside the practical difficulties, does he accept that there is a real political difficulty with that? If the clause were to go through, a large section of people who regard themselves as UK citizens would be treated as though they lived outside the UK.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I do not accept that. That argument shows the misunderstanding of the proposal. If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I think that he will find that the answer gives him some satisfaction.

I have to face some hard immediate facts. The provisions of part 1 of the Bill, on which we have broad consensus, enable the formal establishment of a properly joined up border force, bringing together immigration and customs officers at the frontier. I believe that we need to get on with that, to complete the staff transfers and to draw out the real benefits of joint working. It is also fair to say that the Government have listened and compromised on the Bill, which started in the other place, as we have taken it forward. I have made significant changes on the nationality issues in the other place. I have listened to the concerns on the transitional measures, and I think that what I have proposed is the fair way forward. We have also reached agreement on judicial review.

However, there can be no compromise on the option of the common travel area. We either make this necessary change now, or we do not. I have therefore decided to accept the Opposition amendments to clause 50 this evening. We are committed to the policy and we will examine the options going forward. It is clear to me from the discussions that we have had that the clause is not acceptable across the Floor of the House, and is not acceptable to the other place. Therefore, I intend to support the Opposition amendments.

Paul Rowen (Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for that agreement. The common travel area has existed since 1922. It was enshrined in law in the Immigration Act 1971, and it recognises, as Andrew Mackinlay said earlier, the strong bond and link between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So I am grateful to the Minister for accepting our amendment.

Amendment 14 agreed to.