Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 301, in page 47, line 10, leave out 'nationality'.

I rise on this beautiful morning to speak briefly on this gentle and probing amendment. The terms of clause 96 have been queried by a leading and much-respected NGO and although the amendment is gentle, it touches on an important point of principle and is designed to see how far the Government intend to use the clause to discriminate against incoming passengers. As the Minister will know, under new section 19B in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, it is not always unlawful for a relevant person, which includes necessary public authorities, to discriminate against another person on grounds of nationality or of ethnic or national origins in carrying out immigration and nationality functions. Nevertheless, it is still somewhat worrying that a ministerial order under the Act can authorise racial discrimination, which has obviously been done for immigration officials.

Will the Minister assure us that it will still be unlawful for a carrier to discriminate against passengers under the 2000 Act? The clause seems to authorise something that is unlawful. Although I accept that the legislation is intended to create a more efficient, faster and fairer system, do the Government intend to extend the existing law on discrimination? Will the Minister assure us that there is no intention to extend the practice of lawful racial discrimination through the implementation of clause 96?

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I will speak not only because we jointly sponsored the amendment but because I remember the debates that we had during the Committee consideration of the Race Relation (Amendment) Bill on this and related issues. I, too, am confused, and I follow the promptings of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) on the amendment.

Although it was controversial at the time, the Government insisted that they exempted people performing certain functions in the immigration and nationality directorate from some of the race relations legislation. The justification was that it might be necessary, for example, to stop and search all Bosnians as a group, even though there would be no reason for thinking that they might be terrorists or that they were acting illegally other than information that suggested that there was an issue. I understood the argument, although I did not agree with it and tried to amend the legislation.

We examined the issue earlier when it came up in clauses 6 and 7. We agreed to clause 6, which changes the 2000 Act and limits the exemptions for people performing Home Office functions. That was welcome. I, too, am concerned to discover how far the Government intend to use the clause to discriminate against passengers. The clause provides for a ministerial order in secondary legislation to authorise continuing discrimination on racial grounds. That should trouble us, and I thought that we had agreed to get rid of that.

The hon. Gentleman asked if the clause allows a carrier to make such a distinction. If so, that would be invidious. A carrier flying from South Africa to the

United Kingdom could decide not to allow any Angolans on the plane. That is a thoroughly unacceptable position, and would be a possible risk under subsection (3) if it retained the word ''nationality''. I am conscious that we have not yet seen the draft regulations, and are in the dark as usual.

Subsection (3) states:

''An authority-to-carry scheme must specify—

(a) the class of carrier to which it applies . . . ''

and

''(b) the class of passenger to which it applies (which may be defined by reference to nationality''.

It then refers to

''the possession of specified documents''.

I understand the argument that certain documents, for example a visa, are needed to get on a plane. That may be acceptable, but whatever Ministers intend in subsequent regulations, the subsection appears to suggest that certain nationalities will have to act in certain ways. I imagine that the only justification for that is that a UK national or a British overseas citizen could be treated differently. I could understand it if the subsection meant that a carrier is entitled to differentiate between UK nationals or, at a pinch, UK and European Union nationals, and others, because there is a different rule for moving around Europe.

It would be helpful if the Minister could provide an explanation, as there is considerable concern inside and outside the Committee that the provision harks back to an unacceptable provision in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentlemen that the provision is not as they see it.

I hope that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle enjoyed moving his first amendment. He has had a sudden promotion. Goodness knows where it might end.

The hon. Gentleman for Southwark, North and Bermondsey correctly said that new section 19D in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 allowed discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity and nationality. However, he did not say that for the first time the Act brought the immigration and nationality directorate within the purview of race discrimination legislation, from which it was completely exempted in 1996. There can be no discrimination on the grounds of race or colour without falling foul of the Act. So he was wrong when he said that the IND could discriminate on racial grounds, although it can discriminate on the grounds of nationality.

I would be interested if hon. Gentlemen could tell me how they would run an effective immigration service without the power to discriminate on the grounds of nationality in some circumstances. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey rightly pointed out—I thank him for his acknowledgement—we have narrowed further the exemptions in clause 6. However, with proper ministerial oversight and reports to Parliament, the

potential to discriminate on grounds of nationality for operational and practical reasons is necessary in some circumstances. We will continue to narrow the exemptions if the operation of the system proves that we can safely do so.

Clause 96 talks about the development of authority to carry schemes. We may discuss this matter in debating whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. The provision is not intended to allow carriers to discriminate. Prior to passengers boarding a plane, there will be an electronic check to see whether any known immigration offenders or security risks—often those on the warnings index used at ports of entry—are among them. After an electronic exchange of information the airline will be granted or refused permission to carry. It will be given a yes or a no answer for an individual.

This is merely a way for passengers to know that they will not be stopped at immigration for reasons of immigration or security and be turned back once they have travelled. They will know that they have authority to travel, and although the measure does not replace immigration control, there will be a faster way through it once they arrive at the port.

The carrier will not discriminate; it will act on information from Home Office databases that will either grant or not grant authority to carry. This will prevent airlines becoming liable to fines by carrying improperly documented people. It will give passengers authorised to travel before boarding the aircraft more secure knowledge that they will not be considered either an immigration threat or a security risk when they arrive. We see it as beneficial all round. In a nutshell, that is how we see authority to carry schemes being developed. They are at an early stage at present.

We would not give permission to an airline to discriminate against all Angolans unless all Angolans were on the warning index as immigration offenders or threats to national security, which is highly unlikely.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I shall reserve comment on the scheme for the clause stand part debate. Although that explanation was helpful there are still some issues about authority to carry.

The Minister was right to correct me on the use of the term ''racial grounds''. I remember that discrimination was permitted on nationality grounds, not racial grounds. I accept her remarks on the benefits of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill—that is why my party supported it strongly and tabled amendments to increase its breadth in the House of Lords. It brought the public sector, including the Home Office, the police and IND, within the remit of race relations legislation.

I have not had an answer about how the provision may lend itself to discrimination. I would put the question differently. People from the UK will inevitably be treated differently from those in the EU and people in the EU will be treated differently from those outside it. Different entitlements apply that are consequential on different nationalities. Outside the EU, inhabitants of British overseas dependent

territories are another group with special rights. Apart from that, and apart from Ireland and the old European Free Trade Association, which has common travel areas—conferring certain travel rights from Switzerland, for example, which would not apply elsewhere—everyone is in the same boat and has to enter via the non-UK, non-EC channel.

How can it be justified for IND, or an authority to carry scheme that delegates to airline X, to discriminate against an entire nationality? I understand that people who are a security risk—perhaps from Afghanistan last year—should be prevented from entering, but that should not apply to everyone with an Afghan passport. How can a justification on grounds of nationality not be discriminatory and open to challenge as such in international law under the relevant conventions? Under what circumstances might an authority to carry scheme incorporate definitions that referred to nationality and prevented Bulgarians, Angolans or Chileans from entering the UK? I do not understand how that could be justified.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I am not sure that authority to carry schemes will work in that way. We have 90 million visitors through our ports in the UK, and unless the hon. Gentleman wishes us to treat every single person the same—huge queues lasting for hours would result—we have to carry out our work with reference to risk analysis and intelligence. Sometimes intelligence about an offence to forge particular passports or about difficulties in particular parts of the world might mean concentrating our efforts more on people of a certain nationality. Forgers might be seeking to evade our immigration controls.

In certain circumstances, intelligence about people arriving from a different airport or about a particular nationality's passports will require us to check some people more effectively and more closely than others. If we could not discriminate on grounds of nationality at all, we would have to treat everyone in exactly the same way when carrying out close checks. As I said, that would lead to huge queues for everybody and create chaos in the airports.

When we authorise discrimination against particular nationalities—often because we have intelligence about scams or have detected that people of a specific nationality have forged documents, leading us to suspect an organised attempt to breach immigration rules—it is to enable us to pay more attention to passengers of that nationality when they arrive in the country. Authority to discriminate on grounds of nationality comes into effect to make it practical to act against such threats without having to apply the same close scrutiny to everyone. In immigration operations, that is to some extent inevitable.

I re-emphasise, however, that we cannot and will not discriminate on the grounds of race or colour. Clearly, that would be illegal, but an authority to travel regime is no more discriminatory than a visa regime. The immigration and nationality directorate must target high-risk passengers, and it must bring the reasons before Ministers if it wishes to add a nationality to the list for particular attention. That is

open to public and parliamentary scrutiny, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his time on the Committee that considered the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill.

The system is open and above board, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that, because of the nature of the IND's work, there must be risk analyses, which often focus, inevitably, on particular nationalities at particular times. However, with the extensions in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, we have embedded the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of race or colour. That is a major advantage and a major advance on the position post-1976.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I repeat that the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of race or colour is welcome and good; the Minister's affirmation of that is right. However, I will, if I may, talk the issue through with a Minister outside the Committee, because I do not wish to take up the Committee's time and I still have concerns.

I shall give one example. Recently, there has been much discussion with the Jamaican Government about ensuring that there is a better system for stopping drugs from Jamaica coming here. I know that Ministers from Jamaica have been here and there have been press reports about particular flights being checked and high numbers of people being involved, but I would still find it discriminatory if, for a year, for example, every Jamaican citizen who wished to come to the UK to visit friends and family were subject to an entirely different regime. I am talking about a non-visa country, which is why this is an issue.

I seek clarification on one matter. I presume that it would not be lawful, even under the authority to carry scheme and whatever the merits of the case, for the Government suddenly to say that there was a particular regime for the Portuguese, for example. I presume that, under the common travel and freedom of movement arrangements, such a regime would be in breach of EU treaties and that the EU must be exempt from the provisions, but it would be helpful to know that.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

EU citizens have the freedom to travel and reside in any other EU country. The idea of a visa regime for Spaniards, for example, would be nonsense because of international agreements. However, the logical conclusion of what the hon. Gentleman says is that visa regimes are discriminatory. He is saying that it is somehow reasonable to have a visa regime, which is discriminatory, but that we should not be able to use intelligence to focus on criminals, many of whom have committed serious crimes, who attempt to subvert our immigration controls for various nefarious reasons that he will see manifested on the streets of Southwark and Bermondsey and many other areas in the UK.

I do not understand the difference between imposing a visa regime on a nationality for all time, and discriminating on the ground of nationality for a period if it can be proved to Ministers that there is an operational reason for paying particular attention to that nationality for a time. I think that discriminating

for a short period on the ground of nationality might be a far better way of dealing with a perceived problem than imposing a visa regime, but the hon. Gentleman may have a different opinion. The nature of immigration control is such that we have to act in that way in certain circumstances. Our arrangements allow us to be open and transparent, and are more flexible than a visa regime. I hope that he understands what I am saying. We clearly disagree, but how could sensible, taut immigration control be maintained if no discrimination was allowed on grounds of nationality? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will think about that question before he has a word with anyone outside the Committee. There are no current plans, and no decision has been taken, on whether to impose a visa regime on Jamaica, although clearly there are difficulties with organised crime and drugs.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

This is a delicate issue, on which an important point of principle is at stake. It is right for the Committee, and Parliament, to probe and scrutinise any clause or amendment that touches on the matter, and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made some important points.

I am pleased that the Minister has addressed the issue with such clarity. I accept that as 90 million visitors come into the country each year we must be realistic. We do not have an open border and if, in the Minister's words, we want a ''sensible and taut'' system, the regime must ensure that that is the case. I hope that the authority to travel regime will reduce the queues at Heathrow. Nothing does more to fuel prejudice, suspicion and concern than arriving at Heathrow from an international flight and seeing people from the EU breezing past passport control while huge numbers of people from third world countries have to queue for hours. That looks like open discrimination of the worst kind.

Screening more people before they come into the country will help to reduce the time that welcome visitors to the United Kingdom have to wait at passport control. Screening will be welcome, too, if it prevents more undesirable people—criminals and so on—from entering the country. I hope that the authority to travel regime will work, although we will check closely that the ability to discriminate is not passed on to the carriers who bring people here. We shall watch carefully to ensure that there is no discrimination on grounds of race or colour. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle on successfully straddling the positions of Back Bencher and Front Bencher in making his first, early bid for notice and preferment. The hon. Member for Woking is always good at encouraging the next generation and bringing on talent.

The Minister posed the right question: when we want to control people coming here, should we have a visa regime or another regime? The proposal is for an authority to carry regime, although I would prefer a

visa regime. I accept that there would then be discrimination, but a visa regime has many safeguards that an authority to carry regime does not have. A flexible visa regime stating reasons for requiring people from country X, Y or Z to have a visa is far more legally justifiable, for many reasons. I am unhappy about authority to carry systems, so I accept that there must be a visa system and that is how to discriminate if, for a particular reason, control is required in respect of a certain country.

The Minister knows that many well-informed and respected organisations that work in this field share my concerns. There may soon be a legal challenge to such operations in Prague by officials, including officials from the Home Office, working with the carriers. That scheme is not a visa regime but a screening process, aimed particularly at screening people from the Roma and other communities from eastern Europe.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

Would the hon. Gentleman have similar objections to our pre-checks at Coquelles to stop people who do not possess proper documents getting on the channel tunnel train as passengers? Such checks have been highly successful in preventing clandestines from coming through illegally on the trains by that route.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

My understanding is that the arrangements in France are the subject of international agreements between Britain and France that allow British officials to work on the other side of the frontier, and are therefore negotiable, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and agreement. That does not happen to treaties, but it should. No treaty should be in the patronage and prerogative of the Prime Minister. The Minister knows that I have an entirely different view about how we should treat people arriving in northern France—neither we nor the French handle the situation correctly. I have made proposals to the Home Secretary and others about how we should handle it. As I said, there may well be an imminent challenge in the Court of Human Rights to the practice in Prague, which is believed by people such as the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants to be discriminatory towards certain ethnic groups, and in particular the Roma community. The scheme is carried out on the basis of ethnicity, not nationality.

I expect the Minister knows that the Immigration Law Practitioners Association is entirely unhappy with the authority to carry scheme. I—and others, I believe—object to it for two fundamental reasons. First, whatever technical links exist, it transfers responsibility for deciding who can be carried from Government to commercial and other agencies. It would be the airline that would tell someone that he or she could not travel on a flight at the point of embarkation. An individual from, say, the Czech Republic, who did not require a visa, who was coming to the UK to visit family, arrives at the airport, having booked a flight and made arrangements, could be turned away, not necessarily by British immigration officials—although it could be by Home Office

officials—but possibly by an airline official or an official in the country of departure. The Angolan that I talked about earlier was turned away by an airline official in South Africa, for example. The scheme could remove the decision-making power from IND.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

No.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister says no, but I will let her deal with the issue. If I am wrong, the implication is that the decision will in all cases be taken by IND staff, who would be at all the places where the authority to carry scheme operates.

My second objection to the scheme is that it has none of the safeguards of a visa and immigration system. If I turn up for my flight and hand in my passport and ticket and the technical system flashes up a message that I am not to be allowed on, what remedy and redress do I have? I would have a wasted ticket and have forfeited my holiday. I would have none of the constitutional safeguards, such as appeal mechanisms, that exist if I apply for a visa and do not get it. There should be careful control of who holds information that may form the basis of a refusal to travel. What guarantees exist about who will have it? Could someone who had just started working that day for the airline have that information?

I could present myself at the airport, for example, where someone on the desk gets a message flashing up saying, ''Simon Hughes is an unacceptable visitor''. That person could record that, even though they are an employee of a commercial company, not an official. That is prejudicial in many ways. Who else gets that information? Does the rest of the company get it? How is it controlled within the company? Can the company pass it on to its travel agents? Many questions about the information prevent someone from travelling.

Furthermore, how can I find out the basis of the information that prevents me from travelling? If it is inaccurate, how can I challenge it, and can I challenge it in time to be allowed on the flight that I booked and paid for? If I cannot challenge it in time and am not allowed to get on the flight, for example to go to a family wedding, how can I ensure that I get compensation for being wrongly turned away? None of those questions have been answered. An entirely arbitrary system is being imposed with no right of appeal and no guarantee that people will be allowed to know what information is held against them.

The Minister will clearly disagree with some of those arguments, and I am open to persuasion that the system will be transparent, administered entirely in the public sector, open to scrutiny and allow full redress. If I am right about that, I will be happy to hear it. However, if we are to have controls, they should be introduced by Government through legislation, exercised by Government officials and include rights of appeal. I do not find the clause a satisfactory alternative.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

The authority to carry scheme is intriguing and important, but I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the problems of carriers coming into the UK from France via the rail system.

The Minister will know that Eurotunnel is the main concessionaire, but it has two contractors: Eurostar and the English, Welsh and Scottish Railway. Eurostar itself has three parts—Eurostar UK Ltd, the French railway SNCF and the Belgian railway SNCB—and I had an interesting meeting with officials some weeks ago at which I found out that the trains change ownership as they move. Starting from Paris they are owned and operated by SNCF and miraculously change to Eurostar UK halfway through the journey. I must say that I did not notice the change when I last took a Eurostar train.

As the Minister may know, there may be some difficulties with authority to carry for those different concessionaires. However, I give the Government three cheers for some of the work that they have done in the past few months. It was only last November that the French legislated that passengers using an international service with a domestic leg—Paris to UK via Calais, for example—would have to submit to UK entry controls at Paris. I believe that the law came into force sometime in February, which was a good effort, and the Government's work with the French deserves congratulation. It encourages the process, which I have always thought was a good one, of placing our immigration controls outside our borders, so that any problems can be anticipated and addressed.

However, there is an outstanding problem, and I hope that it can be dealt with under the authority to carry scheme. It concerns two particular rail trips. The first is the ski train to and from Bourg St. Maurice, which comes in twice a week. I do not want to stray too far, but I advise Committee members not to take that train. I took it in the company of 28 friends and expected to have a nice bed to sleep on, but it was no different from the 7.54 from Dorking to London. I had the option of either drinking myself to sleep or staying sober and awake all night. I did the journey both ways, so I tried both methods, and neither was remotely successful. More importantly, the train is direct, and after one has purchased a ticket, there is a Schengen exit check but no UK check. That problem must be addressed, as must the Disney train, which, mercifully, I have not been on.

Apparently there are no plans to have UK immigration controls at Brussels. One can buy a ticket and then have a full check by the Belgian police, which is like a Schengen check. However, there is no UK check. As the Brussels train stops at Lille, one can purchase a single to Lille and stay on the train until it gets to England. That is a problem. I do not know whether the authority to carry scheme will cover that nor whether I will make that extraordinary journey again in the near future. The Minister and her officials should be congratulated on a lot of good work with the French, but they will need to recognise that the authority-to-carry scheme may need to be scratched around a little to cover some of those loopholes.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I hope that I will be able to calm the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey down somewhat before I talk about the prospect of immigration officers having control posts at Disney. I suspect that that would be a popular duty. I am

astonished that he thinks that the visa regime is a more acceptable way of achieving control at immigration in all circumstances than authority to travel. The first thing to say about a visa regime is that it affects everyone. People from countries that come within the visa regime must apply for and be granted a visa before they can travel at all. The authority to travel schemes would be entirely different. None yet exists in the form that the clause would allow. Carriers' liability means that airlines try to check that the passengers who are embarking have the necessary paperwork to get through immigration at their destination and not be sent back, thus making the carrier liable for a fine. It is in everyone's interests that the certainty of being able to get through immigration control is there.

Under authority to travel schemes there will be an electronic check to see whether anyone on a passenger manifest comes up on our warnings index. We will prevent known immigration offenders or people who have been deported before from travelling to the UK. We also have lists of lost and falsified passport numbers, and we could pick up someone who was using a lost passport or a forgery. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been to Heathrow to see some of the fantastically artistic forgeries that have been discovered by immigration officers. They are highly sophisticated.

Our warnings index will flag up lost passports. As soon as such a passport is presented when boarding, the warning will flash and the individual will be taken aside. Authority to travel will simply tell the airline that someone is travelling on false documents or a falsified visa that has been notified to the system, or is a previous immigration offender who was deported and does not have permission to come back. They will be turned back at the boarding gate and not carried. The final decision, if that passenger arrives at immigration control, will be taken by an immigration officer, looking at the same information.

The system simply makes the information available, but it will not supply a list of individuals or passports to private companies. They will feed in a passenger manifest with names and passport numbers, and electronic searches will be carried out relating to information that we already know. Individuals may fail the search because they are on the warnings index or using false visas about which we have been notified. The airline will return a list of passenger names with yes or no attached—no information about why, just yes or no. If the answer is no, the person will be stopped and immediately turned back before boarding: he will not be allowed to enter the country.

It is in everyone's interest to develop authority to travel regimes to make the information available regarding flights. In time, other schemes could be developed for trains or at other ports of entry. Having such schemes in operation for flights saves the airline from being fined, saves the individual from a wasted journey and an immediate sending back and ensures that the warnings index is applied before people reach immigration control. If they reach immigration control, they will be picked up and turned back there: an immigration officer will take that decision. Having authority to travel does not mean that people

can enter the country without going through immigration control.

The focused use of information that we already have about false passport numbers and known immigration offenders who have already been deported will ensure that the people concerned do not re-enter the country—or even try to—illegally. It is much less trouble than imposing a visa regime on every person of a particular nationality, most of whom are completely innocent of immigration offences, are no threat to national security and are not the subject of EU or UN travel bans or other warnings index stipulations. It is so much more sensible than imposing a visa regime on the former Yugoslavia, for example, simply because we do not want Mr. Milosevic to turn up at Gatwick.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I understand the answer, but I disagree profoundly with the analysis. What remedy is available to me if, having bought my ticket and made my holiday arrangements in Johannesburg, I am turned away by the airline? If I fly here and British immigration officials tell me that I cannot enter the country, remedies are available. I can challenge the ruling through the courts, for example. I cannot do so, however, if the airline is responsible for the decision. What happens if the information is inaccurate or flawed, perhaps because of a computer error? The other day, Southwark council prevented me from voting on account of computer error.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

If authority to travel were refused, an individual could make an application to apply for a visa. Someone with a visa would not be refused authority to travel unless we had information that the visa in question was false. The warnings index does not pick up innocents—

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

It makes mistakes.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

Let us assume that it makes mistakes. It operates day in, day out at Heathrow and Gatwick, and it contains the names of people whom the immigration service, for various reasons, would examine carefully. In the vast majority of cases, mistakes will not be made. If they are, individuals will not be able to travel that day. They could go to the relevant embassy—we would not supply reasons to the commercial companies—to establish the reason for refusal. Appeals will be possible, though they will not apply on the day of refusal, and travel will be prevented. Without the authority to travel arrangements, the individual would have come all the way to Britain, been refused entry and been forced to go back. In that instance, reasons for refusal would have to be acquired from the British mission or embassy, and the same appeal rights would apply.

I am always nervous about saying so, but I am confident that large numbers of mistakes will not be made. The warnings index lists immigration offenders and threats to national security, and works well. There are also lists of lost passports with numbers to check to see whether someone is using them. Such information would draw someone to the attention of immigration

control in the airport. In this case, there would be a yes or no answer at the point of departure.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

Is the Minister saying that every time I am turned away at the gate, the British Government will give me the reasons within a reasonable period, and that there will be an appeal process? Where are the legislative arrangements for that? I am not aware that they exist, and I do not see them in the Bill. If that is what she is saying, that is a new and interesting policy announcement. [Interruption.] No, I am serious. That changes the nature of the game. She is saying that that is a British official decision, which one can review, challenge and appeal against in the courts. I would be grateful to know what the authority is for.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

The clause gives an enabling power to create authority to travel schemes. We are just starting to consider how we can make information on the warnings index available electronically but unobtrusively at ports before people travel, so that we can check, for example, that they are not travelling on false visas. That is just a way to ensure that the controls that we apply at ports can be applied slightly in advance.

The clause contains regulation-making powers that would enable us to do everything that the hon. Gentleman asks me to confirm in relation to appeal and redress. That is what we intend to do. We could consider UK missions abroad, or an immigration and nationality hotline. We have not reached the stage of planning precisely how we would deliver redress in those circumstances, but I assure him that it is not an arbitrary decision without redress for the individual.

There would be compensation for an innocent individual who somehow became the victim of a computer glitch, as there is in the case of a wrong immigration decision at a port, if that could be proved in the appeal mechanism of a court. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the development of such technology and schemes such as the pre-boarding authority to travel give greater certainty to everyone, and it will be in everyone's interests if we can develop them appropriately.

I hope that I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that we do not intend to share the information on the warnings index with private companies. They will merely receive a yes or a no about an individual. That does not give the individual the right to enter the country at ports—they will still be checked and have to go through immigration control—but it provides some comfort that, according to the warnings index, the individual is not an immigration offender who has been deported and whom we do not want to return to the country, or who is travelling on falsified documents. If there is a check at immigration control, the individual can be more certain that they will pass through than if there is no check. That is for everyone's convenience.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

The Minister referred to the 90 million visitors a year. How many people are on the warnings index?

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

The warnings index contains various entries, not all of which are people. Any known war

criminals are on it, as are people who have been deported from this country within a set period of years, stolen passports that may be re-used and other stolen identification documents. There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of information, but they do not all relate directly to individuals. The warnings index is therefore a database that operates to flag up known difficulties about documentation or certain individuals. It is available to every immigration officer at passport control at each port of entry, and it is a way to pre-check at a more useful time.

On the issues raised by the hon. Member for Woking, I am not a skier, but the trip must have ruined at least the first day of his holiday. I probably would have spent 24 hours recovering before I could face the slopes. The Disney train is an interesting issue. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in regular contact with Brussels, and we have an arrangement to snap controls in place if it looks like they are needed. We do not need juxtaposed controls everywhere, but we track apparent clandestine movements carefully. If the Eurostar through Lille is targeted we can quickly impose controls in conjunction with the Brussels authorities. We have discussed that with our counterparts in the Belgian Government and we have regular meetings and working groups.

I shall check the ski train and the Disney train, as the hon. Gentleman has brought them to my attention, to ensure that we would be in a position operationally to respond to any sudden development of clandestine activity.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I was not aware of the exciting possibilities of the Disney and ski trains, although I am not encouraged to pursue them following the description given by the hon. Member for Woking. However, I am aware of the Lille-Brussels issue, which is in general currency. Others raised it with me when I took the Eurostar to Brussels recently, and the Minister may need to reconsider it.

I favour British officials being outside the territory. That has been my view for a long time in relation to northern France, and it applies also to Belgium. It seems to be the right way to ensure prevention of illegal entry.

The Minister's answers on the other matter furthered my understanding beyond what the Government have said previously. I have no objection to decisions taken by and on behalf of the British Government. That is a better alternative to an individual visa regime, provided there are two safeguards, which I did not see in the Bill. First, the information should not become available to others outside the Government-individual relationship—the Minister assures us that there will be protection—and, secondly, there should be a proper mechanism for challenge, appeal and compensation. If both are included, that will put a different light on the matter. I am grateful for the Minister's elucidation.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I would not want the hon. Gentleman to think that we will compensate people whom we correctly prevent from entering the country. The provision is for only the small band of innocents about whom he is concerned.

Simon Hughes: Of course, I understand. This area requires consultation with the travel industry. If the Government are to implement a technically-led refusal-to-travel system, the logical time to alert people that they will be refused is when they book international flights. One must produce basic information, including passports for visas, at that time. That would be a better way, which would prevent people from spending their money.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

We absolutely agree. We will look for technological solutions to enable travel agents to have access to the information in due course—obviously it will not happen tomorrow—so that if innocent Bloggs booked a ticket and the system said no, he would not have to spend his money, while if guilty Bloggs booked a ticket, the travel agent would notify him that he was unlikely to pass immigration, so that hopefully he would do something else with his time.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

This may be a great leap forward rather than a nightmare scenario. The Minister has been able to interpret and explain the Government's thinking, which is a change from what appeared to be the case. Others have been equally concerned, and I am grateful. I look forward to further elaboration and shall not oppose the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.