Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2009.

New Clause 3

New Clause 4

New Clause 1

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 6—Stateless children of British nationals—

‘(1) Schedule 2 to the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) (amendments to Immigration Act 1971) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 4, omit sub-paragraph (1)(c).

(3) In paragraph 4, for sub-paragraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b) substitute “shall be registered under it as a—

(a) British citizen, or

(b) in the case of a child whose mother or father is, or would have been but for their death, a British overseas territories citizen, as a British overseas territories citizen.”.

(4) In sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 4, for “sub-paragraphs (1) to (3)” substitute “sub-paragraph (1)”.

(5) In sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 4, after “British Overseas Citizen”, insert “British National Overseas”.’.

New clause 7—Legitimacy—

‘(1) The British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 4C insert—

“4D Acquisition by registration: legitimacy

(1) A person is entitled to be registered as a British citizen if—

(a) he applies for registration under this section; and

(b) he satisfies each of the following conditions.

(2) The first condition is that the person was born before 1 July 2006.

(3) The second condition is that the person is not already a British citizen.

(4) The third condition is that the father of the child satisfies any requirements as to proof of paternity prescribed under section 50(9B) of this Act.

(5) The fourth condition is that the person would have been a British citizen had his father been married to his mother at the time of his birth.”’.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Miss Begg. The first of these three new clauses is the Ilois or the Chagos islands amendment. I cannot remember whether it was on Second Reading or in Committee that the Minister or perhaps the Secretary of State suggested that some Members were jumping on a bandwagon in relation to the Chagos islands. [Interruption.] It was not him. Perhaps it was the Secretary of State on Second Reading. I should like to reassure the Committee that this is certainly not a bandwagon that Liberal Democrats are jumping on now. It may have been a bandwagon that we jumped on many years ago. I recall speaking in a debate with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) about this six or seven years ago. So it is not a recent arrival. It is not something that has just hit our radar.

Clearly now is not the time to debate the injustices that have been done to the Chagos islanders. That is a matter that has been debated many times in the House and there have been many reports on it, but it is not the subject of today’s debate on new clause 1. The subject of new clause 1 is simply to consider the rights of the Chagos islanders, or the Ilois, and their descendents to full British citizenship. That is what the new clause seeks to achieve.

I want to quote some things that have been said about the injustices that I have just referred to. Members of the Committee will have read the judgment of Lord Hoffmann, who described “the whole sad story” of the Chagos islanders, saying that

“the removal and resettlement of the Chagossians was accomplished with a callous disregard of their interests”.

Through new clause 1, we can perhaps go some way towards redressing those injustices and that “callous disregard” of the Chagossians’ interests.

Although Ministers have recognised that an injustice was committed, it is fair to say that their statements of concern have not been of particular use to the Chagos islanders. New clause 1 would be of great use. As I have said, it is about considering the rights of the Chagos islanders’ descendents to full British citizenship.

Members of the Committee may be aware that, under section 6 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, a person who was born after 26 April 1969 and before 1 January 1983 to a woman who was a citizen of the United Kingdom’s colonies by virtue of her birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory and who is neither a British citizen nor a British overseas territory citizen immediately before commencement of section 6 became a British citizen by descent. To summarise that in a way that is perhaps more digestible, what it means is simply that those people are not able to transmit citizenship automatically to their children. That is the key point that we are discussing today. The new clause would ensure that, by omission of section 6(2) of the 2002 Act, those people would become full citizens and thus would be able to pass on their citizenship to their own children.

I hope that other Members of the Committee will agree that that is something that we have a responsibility to do, because of the circumstances in which the Chagos islanders were dispossessed of their own homes, and in many cases forced to go to Mauritius. I also hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to take a positive step in this regard. We know that in 2002 there were intentions to address this issue, but those intentions were not fulfilled.

New clause 1 sets the scene and, as I say, hopefully it will give the Minister an opportunity to address the Committee and explain what action the Government are going to take on this issue.

New clause 6 is entitled “Stateless children of British nationals”. Again, I must say that I am afraid that these citizenship and immigration issues are quite complex and discussing them requires that a fair chunk of information is read into the record, to ensure that there is a reasonable understanding of what our proposal is about. The purpose of new clause 6 is to ensure that stateless children born after 1 January 1983 to “British nationals”, which includes British citizens, British overseas territories citizens, British overseas citizens, British nationals (overseas) and British subjects, wherever they are in the world, are entitled to be registered as British citizens, and that the children of British overseas territory citizens can be registered as both British citizens and British overseas territory citizens.

By way of giving a couple of examples, I will explain exactly what that means. A relatively small number of people would be affected by new clause 6. My understanding is that this is not an issue that affects tens of thousands of people. It affects small numbers of people—tens of people. Therefore, if the Government were concerned that new clause 6 might open the doors to significant numbers of new British citizens, I must say that I do not believe that that is the case. Perhaps the Minister will stand up and contradict me on that point; we will wait and see.

A British citizen born outside the UK under British overseas territories will be a British citizen by descent. As I stated earlier, that means that they cannot automatically transmit their citizenship to their children. In addition, a British overseas territories citizen born outside the overseas territories will be a British overseas territories citizen by descent; again, he or she will not be able to transmit citizenship to his or her children. For the children of British citizens and British overseas territories citizens, it is not always possible to satisfy existing provisions for registration to obtain those citizenships for want of compliance with residence requirements in the UK or a British overseas territory. Moreover, in certain circumstances, where the state of residence prohibits the acquisition of nationality—often on racially discriminatory grounds—this leaves the children of such persons stateless. That is what this is about: stateless children—children who, in effect, have no rights.

In addition, British overseas citizens and British subjects are not able to transmit that citizenship or status, as the case may be, by descent to their children. This also has the effect of rendering such children stateless, where the state of residence prohibits the acquisition of its nationality. Thus the statelessness of children may arise in circumstances where the state in which they live does not provide for the acquisition of its nationality and there is no mechanism for the children to acquire the British nationality of their parents.

All over the world there are small pockets of stateless children who have a link through their parents’ nationality or citizenship to the UK. The UK has accepted that their parents are entitled to a form of British nationality and therefore to some protection and assistance from the UK. Most families with parents who are such British nationals identify with the UK and are treated as identifying with the UK by the state in which they live.

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association—I know the Minister enjoys their briefings and talks to them on a regular basis—has examples of children of British citizens of Asian descent resident in Zambia and the surrounding former British colonies in eastern and southern Africa, who have been rendered stateless by strict domestic citizenship laws and restrictive policies preventing them from registering as British citizens or as British overseas citizens. While there are no official statistics on how many children in Zambia are affected, it is conservatively estimated that about 20 children, not 20,000 or 200,000, of Asian descent resident in Zambia are affected by statelessness. In June 2004 Lord Patel of Blackburn surmised that about 40 to 50 British families of Asian descent whose children were born after the country's independence were affected.

I shall go into the detail of one particular case to illustrate further the point I am making. The case is that of a British citizen of Indian origin resident in Zambia—hereinafter called “A” to simplify matters. He is a professional member of the community. He was a citizen of the UK and colonies by descent without a right of abode. On commencement of the British Nationality Act 1981, A became a British overseas citizen. His father, who moved to Zambia from India in 1953 as a result of the British Government's incentives, was registered as a citizen of the UK and colonies in 1955. He was automatically reclassified as a British overseas citizen on commencement of the 1981 Act. A’s mother, also of Indian origin, joined her husband in what was then Northern Rhodesia in 1957. She was registered as a citizen of the UK and colonies on the basis of her marriage in 1967. On 1 January 1983 she was automatically reclassified as a British citizen.

A married, first in a religious ceremony in Zambia and then in a civil ceremony in the UK in 1985. His wife, born in India, registered as a British overseas citizen in 1990 when the couple were living in the UK. A acquired indefinite leave to remain in the UK without a right to re-admission. The couple’s first two daughters were born in the UK in 1985 and 1991 and were thus British citizens by birth. In 1992 the family had to return to Zambia due to A’s increasing ill health. A’s younger two daughters were born in Zambia in 1993 and 1996; both have been stateless since birth—this is the important point. Despite numerous attempts made by A to register his younger daughters as Zambian citizens, he has been persistently informed that they are not eligible for Zambian citizenship nor do they have a realistic prospect of acquiring it in the future under the country’s citizenship laws. Zambian authorities have also been reluctant to issue travel documents to the children.

On two exceptional occasions, they agreed to issue temporary travel documents allowing the children to leave and return to Zambia, on the understanding that no further applications would be entertained in the same way, other than to issue one-way-only travel documents.

Meanwhile, A has made several unsuccessful applications to register his daughters under section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981. He has made representations through MPs since 1999. In all his efforts A has been unequivocally rebuffed, with neither Zambia nor the UK taking responsibility for the children. As a result, the two daughters remain stateless. They are unable to visit extended family members in India and the UK. Should they ever contract a serious illness or suffer an accident the effects of which cannot be treated locally, it would be necessary for them to be airlifted to South Africa, where treatment could be administered—that has become common practice in such cases. However, as stateless children, they would not be able to travel.

On one occasion, the Home Office suggested that A and his family move to the UK so as to resolve the two daughters’ statelessness. They would have to travel on a one-way travel document as they are not entitled to passports from any country in the world. They have no guarantee that the move would achieve the desired result, as the discretion to register them as British under section 3(1) has never been exercised in their favour. It would also involve leaving the home and country in which they have grown up, to lead a precarious and complicated existence as stateless children in the UK.

The Committee will probably be pleased to hear that that will be the only example I give, but it well illustrates the issue. It is a small-scale issue but one which is of huge importance to a small number of children who are stranded in different parts of the world.

The purpose of new clause 7 is to make provision for those born to fathers not married to their mothers to register as British citizens. As I am sure the Minister knows, before 1 July 2006 British fathers could not pass on their British nationality to children born outside marriage. The new clause affects children born to fathers who were British citizens; it affects those born in the UK after 1983 to such fathers and to a mother who is not British nor settled in the UK. Before 1983, a child born in the UK was a British citizen. It also affects children born in a qualifying territory and children born outside the UK where the mother was not a British citizen otherwise than by descent.

As Members may know, section 9 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 changed the law, amending the British Nationality Act 1981 so that children born to British fathers not married to their non-British, non-settled mothers were born British if their fathers could prove paternity. However, it only did so for those born after 1 July 2006, the day on which the provisions were finally given full effect. It did nothing to correct the present-day effects on children and young adults of the historic injustice and discrimination against men.

The new clause would allow those not considered British citizens—only because they were born to British fathers not married to their mothers—to register as such. The new clause assists those born in the UK after 1983. For those born outside the UK to fathers who are British citizens otherwise than by descent, it would assist those still living.

I hope the Minister will agree that the new clauses are sensible proposals—relatively minor amendments to the law. The issues are about justice, whether for Chagos islanders or for families where the father did not happen to be married to the mother. I hope the Minister will give me some assurance that the Government will not only acknowledge but will be willing to take action on those issues.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

This is an interesting set of questions for the Minister. The Library note for the Bill is instructive. It makes a very important point about the labyrinthine complexities of nationality legislation. We have had so many Bills over the years that there are now many anomalous situations, many of them, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington just pointed out, affecting very small groups of people, but which can nevertheless give rise to genuine human misery.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that another of those quirky immigration issues that I learned of is the debate that is going on about how much visiting Olympians should have to pay for their visas when they come to the UK for 2012.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am grateful for that intervention, although I am not entirely sure how relevant it is to these new clauses.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

It is complicated.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The Minister helpfully tells me from a sedentary position that it is complicated, which, while true, is not necessarily hugely illuminating. I think we all know that there are difficult areas here and they do create genuine human misery. The point is well made about the Bill, which is that although it is indeed, as I have pointed out several times, one in a long line of nationality Bills that we have discussed, it is my understanding that the immigration simplification Bill that, for some reason, we are getting in the next Session, will not address these issues, so this is the last bus for a long time upon which they can be discussed. If the Minister is unable to respond with any positive plan of action, these various small-scale anomalies will exist for many years to come.

I shall move on to each of the new clauses in turn. It is instructive to remember that the problem of the Chagos islanders arises from one of the last gasps of what might be described as traditional British imperialism, which, I suspect, even at the time looked a bit—some would say robust, some might say brutal. Groups of people were just removed from their homeland against their will by, it is worth saying, a Labour Government under Harold Wilson in 1969, at the behest of the American Administration. Looking back on it historically, it is fair to say that that was pretty much the last time that that kind of action would have taken place.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Upper Heyford?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

If the Minister wishes to intervene, he is more than welcome to relive his youth on picket lines, or whatever it was, protesting against a Cruise missile system which his Government have not only continued but, in the case of Trident, recently renewed. I am not sure the Minister will necessarily want to go down that route.

As I was saying, this may be the last chance for the Government to address the issue of the Chagos islanders, if they choose to do so, and we will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response. He will be aware that this is a long-running campaign—there is an all-party group in the House of Lords on this—and the nationality law consequences of what happened to those islanders in 1969 is complex and very serious. Being born in the UK, or a British overseas territory, to a parent who is British or settled there means that you are born a British citizen. However, groups such as the Chagos islanders in exile, for example, in Mauritius, who are not born in the British Indian Ocean Territory, do not have that kind of status, because they are in enforced exile. I can understand why people regard that as unfair.

The Minister will also be aware that there have been several runs around this course in Parliament, not least in the British Overseas Territories Act 2002. Section 6 says that all those born between 26 April 1969 and 1 January 1983

“to a woman who at the time was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of her birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory”

became British citizens by descent. However, that means they are not able to pass on their British citizenship to their children born overseas, if they were not already British citizens. They became British overseas territories citizens, again by descent.

That amendment was designed to make provision for those born in exile from the islands, many of whom are in Mauritius. It only assists those born on or after 26 April 1969—the date on which the removal from the islands was authorised. That is one group who are eliminated and it only assists those who are born to the women involved, not the men. Exile did not end in 2002 when the provision was made; it continues today, and because those who benefit cannot pass on their British citizenship to their children born overseas, it does not deal with the generations who are born in exile. Unless action is taken, the disadvantage those children suffer in respect of their nationality will last for ever.

That is why this is a continuing campaign and cause of concern. I suspect the Minister will share that concern and it will be interesting to hear what he says. I can only assume he is worried about setting a precedent for other groups of people. I appreciate the complexities of British overseas citizenship. It is not one of the easiest areas of nationality law. However, given that we have the Bill in front of us and it is possible to address the issue now, it would be a useful and important thing to consider. Rather like the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say. We have all read the debates in the other place, but there seem to be a number of nice judgments to be made here. I approach this with an open mind because I can see not only the points being made by the campaigners, but the complexities involved.

In new clause 6 we are again dealing with the slightly arcane world of British citizens born outside the UK, British overseas territories and British citizenship by descent. Someone who is born outside this country—or in British overseas territories—and is therefore a British citizen by descent, will not be able to automatically transmit citizenship to their children. A British overseas territories citizen born outside the overseas territories will only be a British overseas territories citizen by descent, and therefore will not automatically be able to transmit citizenship. It is not always possible for the children of British citizens to satisfy existing provisions for registration and obtain citizenship, because of a lack of compliance with the residence requirements in the UK or in the British overseas territories. As we have heard, it happens that children in those circumstances may be left stateless. In the modern world, those people are peculiarly powerless and unable to access many of the genuine universal human rights that we seek to spread around the world.

There are issues of principle at stake here, as well as the practical effects that the hon. Gentleman laid out in his introductory remarks. In terms of new clause 6 it would be helpful if the Minister could let us know what the rough estimate is of how many people we are talking about. Is it dozens, hundreds, or thousands? We need to take a practical approach and see how many people might be gaining extra privileges from this. If the absolute total population that might gain new benefits because of it is only a small number, that would probably have a powerful impact on the argument and what we wish the Government to do.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says in terms of the numbers who might be affected. Looking at the Minister and his officials, I am not sure whether they will in fact be able to give us a figure at all. There is surely an issue about the rights of a child which should not be affected by the numbers involved. There is a basic right. These children are stateless children who do not have rights. That must be addressed.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I sense that the hon. Gentleman is intervening on me as a way of sending a message to the Minister. I hope that the Minister has heard that. To be fair, I do not expect an exact figure, but the order of the numbers involved is quite important.

New clause 7 is obviously related. It makes provision for those born before 1 July 2006 to British fathers who are not married to the mothers to register by entitlement as British citizens. In another place Lord Brett described it as

“a useful part of the comprehensive discussion that we will have on these issues” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2009; Vol. 708, c. 742.]

In a letter to Lord Avebury he acknowledged that the proposal in part replicates the current exercise of discretion in relation to those born to a father who is not married to the mother. The Government said in the other place that the amendment was unnecessary because ministerial discretion can be used. We have had debates about when it is appropriate to use ministerial discretion and when it is better to have decisions written into legislation so that we can have greater certainty and greater consistency over time. That is an important principle.

Lord Brett stated that there was no need for redress because

“it was felt that this could create difficulties for those affected in relation to any other citizenship they held.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2009; Vol. 709, c. 1092.]

As I understand it, the new clause provides for people to apply to register; it does not compel them to do so. I am not sure that that objection holds water. Steps have been taken to mitigate the current effect of historical discrimination against women who are unable to pass on their British citizenship to children born overseas, regardless of whether they are still children or are now adults. The new clause will remove the similar discrimination that still takes place against men in that situation.

This is a collection of extremely difficult issues, which touch on the boundaries of nationality and how it can be transmitted. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says, particularly on new clause 1. This is a long-running campaign, which I suspect he knows will not simply go away if he does not respond to it satisfactorily.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington on tabling these new clauses. I commend him on his approach, particularly in laying out the facts and the background in a very helpful manner. It means that I do not have to repeat it, which is normally the function of a Minister in this regard.

I shall respond to the new clauses in the order in which they were presented. The hon. Member for Ashford pointed out that these are nationality issues; he was right to say that the proposed simplification Bill is an immigration Bill, not a nationality Bill. There is a large number of very complex, unintended, knock-on effects as a result of British nationality overseas issues, not least in the case of Chagos islanders. There are two issues. The Chagossians inhabited the islands of Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos and the Salomon islands, and had also settled in other parts of the Chagos archipelago, such as the Egmont islands and the Eagle islands. Those islands are formally referred to as the British Indian Ocean Territory and now form part of the British overseas territories listed under schedule 6 of the 1981 Act, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said.

The resettlement, if that is the right word—the hon. Member for Ashford described the process as robust at best and brutal at worst, but “resettlement” is the word used in my briefing—

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Does the Minister agree that “eviction” might be a more appropriate word?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I will be careful what I say, because the first issue, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised and, indeed, has campaigned on, is resettlement and what rights, if any, the people have to return. So let me be cautious in that regard.

The official Government position is that the resettlement of the islanders was enforced so as to enable the use of the islands for American military purposes. The resettlement took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the people were relocated to Mauritius and the Seychelles, although some subsequently moved to other territories, including Canada and the United States of America. The return of the Chagossians to the islands has been deemed, until now, as inappropriate for defence, security and practical reasons. Diego Garcia has one of the longest runways, if not the longest, in the world for American forces.

We come to the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Those who were resettled—if I can use that word neutrally—and who were born in the islands were citizens of the United Kingdom and the colonies by birth, by virtue of section 4 of the British Nationality Act 1948. If we are having difficulties with these complexities, I should imagine that the 1948 Act was even more complicated. On commencement of the British Nationality Act 1981, those people became British overseas territories citizens otherwise than by descent, meaning that they can pass their status on by descent to children born to them outside the United Kingdom and qualifying territories. If Committee members are interested, that is mentioned in section 23 of the 1981 Act.

Subsequently, under section 3 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, all British overseas territories citizens otherwise than by descent acquired British citizenship. That means that the rights to British citizenship under nationality law of resettled Chagossians were not affected by the resettlement. However, those children born to parents who were resettled in 1969 acquired citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies by descent only under section 5 of the 1948 Act, if born to a United Kingdom and colonies father, because they were born in Mauritius or other territories outside the United Kingdom and the colonies. However, it is strongly argued by Chagossian campaigners that such a child would, more likely than not, have been born in the British Indian Ocean Territory if their parent had not been forcefully resettled. If that had been so, the child would have acquired citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies by birth and they would now, since commencement of the 1981 Act, and by virtue of application of section 3 of the 2002 Act, have acquired British citizenship otherwise than by descent in the same way as their parent had. However, because those children born outside the islands to resettled parents acquired citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies by descent only, they have subsequently acquired British citizenship by descent by virtue of section 3(3) of the 2002 Act. That means that they can not transmit—pass on—their British citizenship status to children born to them outside of the UK and qualifying territories, under the application of the 1981 Act.

The Committee may be interested to know the number of people that we are discussing here. In that period—the late 1960s and early 1970s—arrangements were made for the islanders to be relocated, as I have said, mainly to Mauritius and Seychelles, although others subsequently moved elsewhere. The substantial majority of those people—some 1,200 of them—were relocated to Mauritius. Of course, that does not cover the issue of those people who were on Mauritius for medical reasons, educational reasons, including being at school and college, and other reasons, who were prevented from returning to the Chagos islands when ships stopped going back to the islands from Mauritius.

It is very difficult indeed to estimate the current number of Chagossians. However, 1,415 British citizen passports were issued to Chagossians in Port Louis in Mauritius and 203 were issued in Victoria in Mauritius between commencement of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 and 8 November 2007. I thought that the Committee would be interested in those figures and I wanted to read them out because a lot of work has gone into finding them.

There may be a total of about 5,000 Chagossians worldwide who are currently eligible to receive British citizen passports, including the second generation Chagossians born outside of the British Indian Ocean Territory who acquired British citizenship by descent under the 2002 Act. So we are discussing not only adults resettled from the islands from 1969 onwards but some of their children. The Chagossian community in the UK is already about 1,000 in number, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office estimates that there are around 3,000 to 4,000 Chagossians in Mauritius and the Seychelles.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The Minister is right that those are extremely interesting figures. He said that the Chagossian community in Britain is about 1,000. Is that number fairly stable or has it been growing in recent years?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

My understanding is that that number is fairly stable; I have no evidence that the movement is exponential or that the curve is getting steeper. However, I want to emphasise that that number is an estimate. It is better than a guess, but it is an estimate none the less. There are no accurate figures on the number of Chagossians in the UK.

The Committee will want to know the Government’s position on this issue. The proposal in new clause 1 is to extend British citizenship to a further generation of Chagossians; that is, to the children of the children who, it is argued, would have been born in qualifying territories if the resettlement had not taken place.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Does the Minister also acknowledge that, to some extent, the 1969 cut-off date is not entirely fair? As he said himself, the fact is that ships stopped going to the Chagos islands and a lot of people had to move out before that. So that 1969 cut-off date is not an actual fixed point.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Indeed, I said that the resettlement started in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The particular date in 1969—I think that it was a date in August 1969—does not take on board the practical point about the ships that he made. The difficulty that the Government have is that we are talking about children of children and what could have happened to those people retrospectively, if the Committee follows my logic.

In the debate on this subject in the other place, Lord Brett expressed sympathy on behalf of the Government for the circumstances that had brought about the situation. The vast majority of Chagossians who from 1969 onwards resettled from the British Indian Ocean Territory—principally Diego Garcia, but the other islands as well—are now in Mauritius, which of course is not covered. The new clause seeks to address what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington sees as an imbalance in the rights of former residents of the Chagos islands, and would enable children who were born outside the islands, potentially due to the resettlement of their parents, to acquire British citizenship in the same way as they would have done but for that resettlement.

The intended beneficiaries of the provision, if I understand the new clause correctly, would be second generation Chagossians born outside the British Indian Ocean Territory and the UK qualifying territories—not those who were resettled, but their children. The new clause seeks to ensure that those children are able to pass on the right to citizenship to future generations born to them outside the UK qualifying territories.

In discussing the new clause, I have been made aware of discussions being held between the Foreign Office and the Chagossians and their representatives on the broad range of issues relating to resettlement. The hon. Gentleman referred to the all-party group on the Chagos islands, which I understand last met on 30 May and is giving support to those representations on resettlement. The principal issue they have raised with us is their right, or suggested right, to resettle on the islands, rather than—not instead of—the issue of resettlement. Of course, Miss Begg, you would not allow me to address that issue here because it is not covered by the Bill. Suffice it to say, we are sympathetic to the position of second, and subsequent, generation Chagossians who were born in Mauritius or the Seychelles. I appreciate that is not the issue raised in the new clause, but I thought it would help the Committee to know that that was our focus.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

There is some merit in the Minister setting the debate in a wider context. Has he had any advice about the consequences of accepting or not accepting the new clause for the various sovereignty claims to the islands? Mauritius has made a claim on the British Indian Ocean Territory and may have understandings about what will happen when the United States finishes using Diego Garcia. I cannot remember the position, although I knew it once. There could be implications for the rights of people who are citizens of the British Indian Ocean Territory by descent but who are now in Mauritius and the other islands.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The straightforward answer is no, although I absolutely see the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is a relationship between the issue addressed by the new clause and the issue I have just raised, and I will take that up with my colleague in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I cannot remember who that Minister is after the reshuffle but I think it is still my noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown, or at least it was at 9 o’clock—please do not put that in Hansard. [Interruption.] I am advised that it is my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.

Moving swiftly on to the bit we are interested in, citizenship, otherwise than by descent, that can be transmitted to the next generation, born outside the UK, can only be acquired by persons who are born in the UK or a qualifying territory, who are naturalised in the UK, or who are born outside the UK or a qualifying territory to a British citizen in particular circumstances, for example a British citizen in the Crown service.

Furthermore, Chagossians who are British citizens through living in Mauritius or other parts of the Indian ocean could, if they so choose, elect to live in the United Kingdom. We understand, as I have already said, that some have done so. That means that any child born to them in the UK or a qualifying territory would acquire British citizenship automatically at birth by virtue of being born to a British citizen.

When a child has not been born in the UK but has been born in Mauritius or another part of the Indian Ocean it is probable that they will have acquired the citizenship of the state in which they were born. Any decision to allow British citizens by descent with a connection with the British Indian Ocean Territory to pass on their citizenship could lead to representations from other British citizens. British citizens by descent who are ordinarily resident in the UK and who have children born to them outside the UK cannot transmit their citizenship under section 2 of the 1981 Act, unless—there is a caveat—they are working in specified employment under Crown or designated service.

The policy on transmission of British citizenship by persons who hold that status by descent only is, therefore, strictly applied. The policy is designed to ensure that children born outside the UK to a British citizen by descent acquire British citizenship only when there is an ongoing close connection with the UK—the principle will also apply in my arguments on new clause 6—and, therefore, in cases where that connection is broken, on a temporary basis only. It is thus inappropriate to amend the class of British citizenship acquired by that group. So to amend would lead to similar representations from others who have British citizenship by descent only. There is no adequate case for such an extension.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I hear what the Minister says. This seems to be the central point where numbers come in. He has just said that the proposal would set a precedent for other groups of people. What rough quantum of numbers are we talking about?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I thought I had been through that.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I think that the hon. Member for Ashford is asking what are the other categories of people whose claims the Minister says would be reinforced if the Chagos islanders were granted permission.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I am not sure about the numbers, but it would be people who, as I have said, were born outside the UK to a British citizen by descent only, who acquired British citizenship when there was no close connection with the UK. That is our difficulty. In layperson’s terms, the new clause is attempting to right a historical wrong by assuming citizenship rights being passed on to the next generation. My difficulty with that, as I have explained, is twofold. First, any such change that would retrospectively, as it were, assign rights could be ascribed in other places to other people. Secondly, in any event, it makes an assumption that the child would have been born in the Chagos islands. That is the difficulty in practical circumstances.

Our policy is consistent and empathetic to Chagossians when there has been an application by the first generation and when we have been able to use the powers that we have to grant citizenship, but those children, who may be grown up now, of course, who have acquired citizenship of another country—predominantly Mauritius—have no such close connection with the United Kingdom. Therefore, retrospectively, to turn that back would imply difficulty, although that is not quite the right use of the word “retrospectively”. We do not see how the Government can separate the nationality rights of Chagossians from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s general policy regarding the Chagos islands. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate.

Although the Government have not sought to justify the actions taken in the 1960s and 1970s, we have maintained the line that our obligations—legal and otherwise—have been settled by previous compensation awards, and by the grant of British citizenship under the 2002 Act. If hon. Members are concerned that we have shut the door on Chagossians, the provisions in that Act should be borne in mind, although, to be fair, I think that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has acknowledged that point, if not today, during previous debates.

The British Indian Ocean Territory is currently British sovereign territory—none of it is US territory. Recently, Foreign Office Ministers have repeated publicly, and have given the commitment to the Mauritians, that when the UK no longer requires the BIOT for defence purposes, we will cede the territory to Mauritius. Of course, we have given no indication of the time scale for that, but it is important because it will transfer rights to Mauritians, which we think is the best way to address the wrong that the hon. Gentleman wants addressed.

The UK-US agreement was signed in 1966 and resettlement continued until 1973, when of course there was a Conservative Government. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford about Harold Wilson, but I think Edward Heath continued the policy.

I have tried at some length to show how our strategy will address the problem raised by the new clause but without the associated difficulties. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, new clause 6, on stateless minors, would extend current provisions that enable a person born stateless outside the United Kingdom or qualifying territories to a British national, to acquire the same type of British nationality as their parent. That relates to provisions in schedule 2(4) to the British Nationality Act 1981.

The new clause would have two principal effects: first, to remove the requirement for a stateless person to have lived in the United Kingdom for a period of three years; and, secondly, to change the nationality status acquired from that of the parent to either full British citizenship or British overseas territory citizenship. It is a well-understood principle that British citizenship should be limited to those with a close and continuing connection with the United Kingdom or an overseas territory. As such it can normally be transmitted to only one generation born overseas—that is similar to the point about the Chagossians. The principle is reinforced by the proposals in the Bill on earned citizenship. Nevertheless, the Government are committed to reducing cases of statelessness, and we will continue to make exceptions—the key point about ministerial discretion is that it is much tougher than the impression we may have given—to reduce statelessness in order to meet our obligations under the important 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness.

It is not unreasonable to insist on a period of residence before registering a stateless person. I shall address the example given by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. The entitlement to British citizenship should not be available to someone with no ties to the United Kingdom or with only a distant connection, such as a grandparent or a parent’s connection through a former colony. Those who acquire British citizenship, and therefore the right to abode in the UK, should have a real association with this country, such as through a period of residence. Despite our commitment to reducing statelessness, we can only go so far to compensate for the fact that other nations do not share that commitment, and so do not provide for the acquisition of citizenship by children born in their territory.

Indeed, I fear that some countries would abuse such a change were we to make it. I can think of several countries that would do so—as I am sure the Committee can. It should give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance in his campaign to hear that the requirements under schedule 2 of the British Nationality Act 1981 are in accordance with article 4 of the United Nations convention on the reduction of statelessness, because the fear is that a country that was not signed up to the convention could discriminate against groups—perhaps minorities—by denying them citizenship of their country in the belief that it would be taken advantage of if signatory countries made those changes.

If we accept the proposed new clause, it would allow children born overseas to British overseas citizens and British subjects to become British citizens if they would otherwise be stateless. To illustrate my point, I shall give an example of how that could work. When Uganda became independent in 1963, despite having been born in Uganda, a large number of citizens of the UK and the colonies did not acquire Ugandan citizenship because neither parent was born there. Such people became British overseas citizens and may now have children—a second generation born in Uganda—who cannot acquire citizenship because under current Uganda law, a child born there would not be a citizen if neither a parent or a grandparent is or was a member of an indigenous community that existed, incredibly, in 1926 or was a citizen at the time of the child’s birth. I am not sure from where that date came, but that is the law there.

The amendment would mean that a child born to such a British overseas citizen parent would be able to register as a British citizen and would therefore have a right to abode here without the child or parent having a close connection to the UK. The United Kingdom makes adequate provision for children born stateless who have a connection with the UK or an overseas territory to acquire citizenship. In doing so, we believe that we meet our international obligations as set out in the 1961 convention.

Let me further reassure the Committee on the point about discretion. As has been said, we do not give a guarantee that if people move to the UK they will acquire citizenship. However, if they live here for three years before applying on behalf of their children, the law provides a registration entitlement under paragraph 4 of schedule 2 to the 1981 Act. That means that there is no need for discretion to be exercised under section 3(1), which relates to an open discretion to register a child. However, schedule 2, paragraph 4 provides for stateless children born outside the UK whose parents are British citizens, British overseas territory citizens, British overseas citizens or British subjects. If they moved to the UK for three years, under that paragraph they would be able to apply for the child’s registration. Subject to the normal good character-type caveats, schedule 2, paragraph 4 provides not for ministerial discretion but for that entitlement. In a way, schedule 3 is an open discretion.

I am more than happy to look at the specific example that the hon. Gentleman used, but my understanding—I caveat my answer with that—is that the advice we gave was that they could come here. His concern that there was no guarantee—that it was a pig in a poke for them—is covered by schedule 2, paragraph 4. Again, I am trying to suggest that we have a strategy to meet the point without the consequential dangers.

I must move on; I am being urged to do so from both sides of the Committee. The final amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington relates to a difficult area of policy: the rights or supposed rights of illegitimate children of British fathers. I have been asked whether we have any estimate of how many such people there are. Her Majesty’s Government have no such estimate. We have not made one.

It is not known how many illegitimate children of British fathers there are in the world. It is an area of speculation that I do not wish to get into. It assumes many things, such as whether the father knows—in my speaking notes, it says “in my experience”. The point has been made. It is a serious question, though, and I respect it. The answer is that we do not have an estimate, and neither do we have experience that could allow us to make a fair extrapolation.

The new clause would enable registration by any person born illegitimately to a British citizen father before 2006. The hon. Gentleman’s point of principle is important, because the rights of children born illegitimately should be recognised as a general principle, and we did so in the 2006 Act. He is very reasonably trying to right a wrong, but let me again describe our approach.

We now come to the Secretary of State’s discretion exercised in relation to those born illegitimately to a British father. The discretion is exercised under the broad remit of section 3(1) of the 1981 Act, which came into force in 1983, to enable the registration of children born before 1 July 2006 who are the illegitimate children of British citizens or settled fathers. That has been the case since the Family Law Reform Act 1987 removed any distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children in other areas of law.

Parliament changed the law on 1 July 2006 to enable British citizen fathers to pass on their citizenship to a child born to them out of wedlock. The change, however, was not made retrospective, because of the difficulties that would have been created for those affected in relation to any other citizenships that they held. That is, of course, still the case.

The policy adopted in relation to the exercise of discretion under section 3(1) is that registration can take place if the Home Secretary is satisfied about the paternity of the child, all those with parental responsibility have consented, the good character requirement is met and if, had the child been born to the father legitimately, he or she would have had an automatic claim to British citizenship or an entitlement to registration.

The exercise of discretion under section 3(1) applies only to those who are minors on the date of application for British citizenship. There is no power in law, discretionary or otherwise, to register as a British citizen a person who was born illegitimately to a British citizen father before 2006 and who is now an adult.

The question of numbers is complicated by the fact that many of those who were illegitimate at birth may since have been legitimised by the marriage of their parents. Many children born illegitimately to a British citizen father between 1983—the onset of the 1981 Act, from when retrospective discretion is applied—and 2006 will have become British by virtue of being born to a British citizen mother. Many people will have been registered under the discretion exercised by the Secretary of State as long as they were minors on the date of application. Many others born illegitimately before the change in law who are now adults may well have naturalised as British citizens under section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981. However, it is impossible to say.

In addition to the guessing game—I say this not to score points but to put it on the record—I am advised that the new clause is technically incomplete in that it does not determine whether someone registered under it would acquire British citizenship by descent or otherwise than by descent and so reflect the precise circumstances of their birth. There is also a minor technical difficulty. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington recognised that the 2006 Act addressed the principal issue. We effectively apply that through our discretion retrospectively to 1983, but to do so further would be a step into the unknown. It would be a difficult move to take.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I just wonder about the numbers. I know that it is not possible to estimate at all accurately, but have any figures been collated since the 2006 change that would give a rough indication of what numbers we are talking about?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I asked that question, and the difficulty is apparent in the third of my four examples: the numbers who could have used that right used a different route because of other connections. That is why I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman.

In short, the difficulty I have on a practical level is the potential for complication, abuse and unfounded claims and the complicated measures that I am sure hon. Members can imagine would flow from that. We believe that we have strategies that address the issues in all three new clauses, although they do not go as far as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington would like. He would prefer a clean change in the law to go further back than we went in the cases of the stateless and illegitimate children and the Chagossians. I hope that I have explained my reasons. I have tried to be sympathetic rather than dismissing these arguments. We recognise that they are important, but we do not believe that they are practical and in some cases we believe that there are some technical difficulties.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I start by thanking the Minister for explaining in some detail the Government’s position. It may have prevented Labour Members from going off and doing more important things, but it was worth getting some of the points that the Minister made on the record, particularly the fact that discretion is available. The Minister having reinforced that point, some of the cases may now be resolved in a way that is favourable to the claimants. I will ensure that he gets details of the individual case I described.

On new clause 1, the Minister highlighted the fact that the FCO is in discussion with the all-party group, principally around the issue of resettlement rights. It is fair to let those deliberations continue and the group could clearly take on the issue that I sought to raise about citizenship if it wanted to. I understand what he was saying about British citizenship claims from other categories of people with no close connection to the UK who could see this as a precedent if the new clause were accepted.

On new clause 6, the Minister reinforced the point about discretion. Without being able to make any categorical statements he seemed to underline the fact that, although there are no guarantees about people being allowed to get citizenship after a period of residence, there is a high probability that the statelessness issue of children in that case at least might be addressed. Finally, on new clause 7, the Minister was right not to seek to document or quantify the number of illegitimate children of British fathers. That would clearly be extremely difficult to establish. One might be able to extrapolate from any figures the Minister arrived at how many may have been fathered by Members present in the Chamber today. We would not want to go down that route.

I heard what the Minister said. I heard him underline the point about discretion, and I heard his reference to the debates that are taking place between the FCO and the all-party group on the Chagos islands. Having received some reassurance that the Government are showing flexibility, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 2

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This debate has become a regular feature of immigration Bills, in that since 2007 Opposition Members have come to the conclusion that we need a unified border police force in this country, and have sought to persuade the Government of that in several immigration Bills in both Houses. We seek to do so again. There was a good debate on the subject in the other place. This is an idea whose time has come, and I sense that it is an idea that the Government are inching towards but, for reasons that I have never quite understood, will not actually adopt.

It is unarguable that we ought to protect our borders better than we do. Britain is a series of islands. We do not face the land border problems faced by many other countries that are desirable targets for illegal immigration and cross-border crime, but we ought to be able to defend our borders better than we do. Our defences are not adequate.

The new clause would be a significant step forward. We think that it would be a more effective step forward than the one that the Government have taken, which we do not oppose—that is, to merge some of the functions of the UK Border Agency and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs at the border—but we think it illogical that the police should be the one body that is still doing all the work in a fragmented way.

Experience of policing more widely shows us that specialisation of police services is more effective, particularly in fighting the new types of crime that have hit society in recent years. We therefore believe that the Bill as it stands is a severe missed opportunity.

The Minister himself admitted that our border controls are too lax. He stated:

“We have, compared to other rich countries, been liberal in our border controls.”

I believe that that is an accurate quote.

The Prime Minister admitted that Britain is suffering from the failure to tackle organised immigration crime. On 12 May, he stated:

“As well as street gangs we are seeing increasingly sophisticated international criminal networks which operate in the shadows but are responsible for the worst kind of crimes: people trafficking, drugs, and—as we saw with the Gooch gang in Manchester—gun crime...we need to go further”.

In that, I agree with him.

In July 2007, the Prime Minister announced that he would introduce a new border force. It involved a link-up between the UKBA and HMRC’s customs operations. However, if that is as far as the Government will go—that seems to be the case; it has certainly been the case argued by Ministers up to now—it is not far enough or good enough.

Clearly, the police are the body with the greatest expertise in fighting cross-border crime. I am sure that the Minister, too, finds as he goes around the country that the level of expertise is inherently patchy. Constabularies such as Kent, which have borders and big ports to control, develop expertise, but other police forces inevitably have less to do with such things and so develop less expertise.

Protecting our borders, and particularly fighting illegal immigration, cannot be done only at UK borders. The Minister says continually that he wants to export the border and do some border protection work overseas, which is fine, but I urge him to recognise that protecting our borders and combating illegal immigration, particularly human trafficking and illegal working, also takes place inside our borders. If one wants to be more effective in fighting illegal working and the sex trafficking aspect of human trafficking, one must be more effective all over the country, not just in our big cities. Some of the worst immigration-related crimes take place in small towns and villages throughout the country. A shocking change in human trafficking over the past few years is that brothels with young women who are often duped into coming here are not a feature just of our bigger cities and of our inner cities. They crop up in many places. There have been some in my constituency, which is a prosperous part of Kent where one would not expect to find them, and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who has done so much good work in raising the consciousness of this place to human trafficking, says that he finds the problem in Devon, and that it simply did not exist two or three years ago.

That is an illustration of the wider point. We must do much better, and the Government’s action so far is simply not enough. The facts speak for themselves. The estimate of illegal immigration can never be precise, but the most recent, which the Government carried out, suggests that it was anything up to 500,000. The Minister will have seen the report commissioned by the Mayor of London, which puts the figure slightly higher at about 600,000. Clearly, it is likely to be in that sort of ball park, and we all agree that we must cut it.

In other crime areas, drug offences rose 68 per cent. between 1998-99 and 2007-08, and that is another big cross-border trade. We cannot tackle crime effectively while our borders are so porous. We have debated where illegal immigrants come from and the routes that they use to become illegal immigrants. My best guess is that about 60 per cent. arrive illegally. We know that apart from the appalling effect on lives, the economic and social costs of people trafficking are more than £1 billion a year, and it seems likely that the regrettable increase in gun crime in this country is being fuelled by the illegal supply of weapons into the UK, particularly from eastern Europe.

The tasks facing a border police force are huge, and hugely important. Each area, whether trafficking, drugs, guns or illegal immigration, would justify the creation of such a force. The fact that we are facing such growth in all four of those areas at the same time seems to be an extremely strong argument for such a force. If the Government are unwilling to accept the Opposition’s argument, perhaps they will listen to others. Sir Chris Fox, when president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said on 25 March 2006:

“Personally I think we should have a Border Force. I think we should have a group of people that are made up of Police Officers, Special Branch, Immigration Officers, Customs, who have a total responsibility for all our points of entry.”

I may surprise the Minister by praying in aid Sir Ian Blair—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I welcome Members to the final sitting of this Public Bill Committee, which appears, if I may say so from the Chair, to have run extremely smoothly so far. I congratulate all Members who have ensured that smoothness, not least the Minister for Borders and Immigration, who is dealing with the Bill on his own. Whatever political party is in power, when a Minister sees through a Bill on his own, he should be commended, and I do so from the Chair in an entirely impartial way.

When we broke at 10.25 this morning for Question Time in the House, the hon. Member for Ashford, whose name has been mentioned a number of times on the Floor of the House in its deliberations, was speaking to new clause 2. I ask him to resume his feet and continue doing so.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I am sure that the Committee’s smooth running is due largely to your impeccable chairmanship.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I hoped you would say that.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I hoped that you were hoping that I would say it, Sir Nicholas.

When I was interrupted by the suspension this morning, I was praying in aid senior police officers in favour of our proposal in new clause 2 for a border police force. I had just moved on to Sir Ian Blair, who is not often prayed in aid from these Benches but who was right on this issue. He said in February 2005 that when the country

“got into the debate about SOCA, it surprised me that we did not have a national border police.”

I suppose that I should emphasise for the purposes of Hansard that when I refer to SOCA, I am talking about the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

Sir Ian Blair repeated that opinion:

“I have always thought that having a national border police was a good idea...I am very supportive of this issue.”

I have suggested a number of growing serious international crimes with which the border police would deal, and I want to return for a moment to the subject of human trafficking, because it is the fastest-growing international crime in the world. It is up there with transporting guns and drugs across frontiers, and I suspect, unfortunately, that it will continue to grow and become ever more serious. The UK is one of the biggest destination countries—I think that it is the biggest in Europe at the moment—for that crime. The Minister can correct me if he thinks that I am wrong, but whether we are or not, human trafficking is a serious problem for us. Not only are we a destination country, we are a transit country as well.

The latest estimate is that 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year. The number of women in the UK who are victims of trafficking is, of course, difficult to estimate, but there are many thousands. The figures for off-street prostitution are stark, vivid and terrible. Whereas 10 years ago, 15 per cent. of such women were foreign, the number is now about 85 per cent., according to some of the surveys I have seen. The proportion of women involved in prostitution who come from abroad has been turned on its head. Inevitably, large numbers of those women were trafficked here deceitfully, having been promised lives as waitresses and so on and then exploited by criminal gangs. The other, particularly horrific part of the trade is the trafficking of children, which also appears to be growing. In an attempt to combat that particularly evil trade alone, it will be worth while having a specialist border police force.

I emphasise the point that a specialised police service is particularly effective in fighting new types of crime. The Committee will be aware that we set up a committee under Lord Stevens, a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, to review our border security arrangements as a whole. His committee, which was full of other senior police officers and former Home Office officials, concluded that only a unified border force could protect our borders effectively. We are now building on the valuable and useful work of Lord Stevens and his committee to develop the detail of what we can do and when we can do it.

I share the Minister’s concern that we should change our policing and other control systems gradually so that there is not too much disruption to existing activities. We know that it ought to be possible for a new force to be effective and that it ought to be able to protect our borders. We have discussed the one land border that this country has, and there is division across the Committee on how we should deal with it, given the common travel area, but there should be no division about whether all other UK borders can be defended. They ought to be defensible, but they are not defended well enough at the moment.

Experience in other areas of crime prevention shows that the type of specialisation we propose has been effective, so there is no reason why it could not be applied at the border. We also feel that the proposal has a tide running behind it. An early proponent was the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in a previous incarnation. In a report as far back as 2001, it recommended

“a single frontier force on the basis of secondment and direct employment, but with clear lines of communication”.

That was six years ago, and some steps toward better co-ordination of our enforcement activities at the border have been taken, but the Government have not taken the big, important step of not only involving the police but allowing them to set up a unified border force. I cannot remember how many times I have urged the Government do that when we have debated immigration Bills, but I do so strongly once again. We think that would be an important step forward in improving the safety of our borders and therefore the security of all those who live within our borders.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Sir Nicholas.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

Slurp, slurp.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

It was a genuine comment, Sir Nicholas.

I rise partly in support of the proposal and partly to seek further clarification of it. The Liberal Democrats support the idea of a UK border police force, and would like to see such a force, but the Conservatives’ proposal seems to be for an all-purpose border and immigration force that focuses very much on immigration rather than policing. We would like the focus to be clearly on immigration and the policing of immigration issues, but also on the wider issue of crime. That does not come across in the proposal.

We believe that there is a need to unite different border functions, and it is clear that major crime is not a particularly local issue. Indeed, it is often a national or international issue, and therefore crosses borders, so we support having police powers within a UK border force. Perhaps when the Conservatives respond to the Minister, they will have an opportunity to set out whether they see the proposal as principally about tackling immigration issues at borders or whether there would also be a component for tackling major crime that is not linked to immigration.

In the other place, our proposed amendment referred to

“protecting UK borders...strengthening frontier protection against threats to the security, social and economic integrity and environment of the United Kingdom...preventing and detecting human trafficking; and...maintaining and improving a safe, ordered and secure environment in ports”.

It is clear that more debate is needed, and perhaps this is one step towards what may be the Government’s longer term ambition of including the police. If that is the Government’s journey, I hope that they will speed up arrival at their destination.

It is probably sufficient to have expressed support in broad terms for the amendment, but to have queried the almost exclusive focus on immigration at the expense of other significant policing issues affecting our borders.

David Hamilton (Labour, Midlothian)

I am raising this question again because when I raised it at our first sitting, you kindly told me, Sir Nicholas, that that was the wrong time to do so, so I am now raising it at the appropriate time.

We already have a UK force. It is called the British Transport police. It is not new, but it needs to be adapted. We must recognise that the world has changed. When I was a young man, my ambition, like many boys in my age group, was to have a holiday abroad. The way we live has changed fundamentally, and the vast majority of British people can now take holidays—when I go into schools, every young kid tells me that they go on holiday abroad. The mass of people moving in and out of the country has changed the dynamics of how we operate.

What has not changed during that time is that we have not recognised that we must move the apparatus forward to ensure that all the agencies move as one. The agencies dealing with immigration, drugs, human trafficking, terrorism and so on are important. They have shown that they can adapt year on year, time after time, and their experience tells them when they must do so. The one agency that has never adapted is the uniformed police, and I make no apology for returning to that point.

I do not understand the nonsensical argument for having Lothian and Borders police in Edinburgh, Strathclyde police in Glasgow, Tayside police in Dundee, and Grampian police in Aberdeen. That is reflected throughout the UK. It makes no sense not to have a unified force with a single command structure that can adapt to changes over the years.

We are discussing devolving more power to Scotland, and that will follow in Wales and Northern Ireland, but increasing power should be a two-way stream. We should recognise that although Scots law is different from that in the rest of the UK, and that the police forces are different and come under different regimes, there is a sensible argument for some powers returning to Westminster. This is one. There is logic in having a structure that tells people clearly that if they arrive at any airport in the UK, the same system will operate. With the best will in the world, the co-operation between police forces and agencies lacks the necessary command structure.

I always say if one cannot say something in five minutes, it is not worth saying—although this place does not abide by that—so I shall not take up much time. My view, which is simple, not partisan, is that we must adapt to a world of changes, and we have not done that. We must get four Governments to sit down and agree that one Government—the UK Government—should deal with the matter. That makes sense, and the vast majority of people throughout the UK would understand that. We should have one force, one line of command and one Department, under one Parliament, not four.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Thank you for your kind words, Sir Nicholas. I welcome you back to the Chair. I had hoped to have an Under-Secretary to help me, but that is not to be.

Ministers often resist Opposition amendments on the grounds that they were not invented here, although they rarely admit that. I assure the Committee that that is not the basis for my argument on new clause 2. As the hon. Member for Ashford said, there is a long-standing debate behind the suggestion and it has been debated within the police force and elsewhere. Indeed, the Government’s Green Paper consulted on a similar proposal—although it was not exactly the same in its range. Let me reassure the Committee that my argument is not based on the fact that the proposal is not my new clause.

There is an argument for what is being proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian has put the argument, as have some people in the police force. The matter was also debated in the other place—although I do not think it was voted on. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord West of Spithead—known in the Department as west of Spithead as opposed to east of Manchester as in my case—set out the significant steps that the Government have already taken towards the objective that my hon. Friend raised: making sure that we have the best command and control to deal with what we all accept is a significant issue in the United Kingdom.

In addition to ensuring that we have the powers to strengthen our border controls for the purposes of migration management and customs detection, which we have been debating in the Bill and in relation to other things, we should make sure that we have the right structures in place. It is important that there is integration at the ports and airports, and through the postal service. The postal service is often overlooked in public debates on this matter because it is not an immediately visible facility, but our postal detection facilities are very important in relation to customs powers.

Increasingly, there has recently been what I have described as the exportation of the border—the juxtaposed controls at Calais, in Belgium and potentially elsewhere if dispersement happens. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington rightly picked me up on that. There has been integration of Customs and Revenue functions not only in relation to the border and immigration authority as was, but in relation to UK Visas. Traditionally, the staff whom the United Kingdom Government employ to check and issue visas came under the remit of the Foreign Office, but they now come under the UK Border Agency. Some 3,000 of our staff are employed overseas and that is a further exportation of the border.

I cannot argue against the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford on the basis that we do not want integrated structures; it is really a question of how best to achieve those objectives and how one draws the line. That is the basis of my argument. The provisions of part 1 provide a more robust legal framework for the UK Border Agency, so that it can build upon its successes. We are very proud of its successes and we think that we get an unfair hearing given the dangerous and difficult job that our people do.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made some criticisms of our border controls. I understand why, but let me briefly paint a picture of why we think we are improving the situation. I suppose I could be accused of making partisan points, but these are the facts. It is true that we now deport more people than ever—66,000 people were removed from the UK in 2008. I am sorry, but that figure is not more than ever as there were previous years when there were slightly more. However, in recent years there has been a significantly upward trend. Some 5,400 of those people were foreign national prisoners. A Home Secretary resigned over that issue and took responsibility for that. So it is incumbent on us to improve.

On illegal migrants, more than 1 million freight vehicles were searched last year, and as a result 28,000 attempts to enter the country illegally were stopped. I say “attempts”, not people, because some attempts involved the same people trying to get back in.

The hon. Member for Ashford is right to mention people trafficking. Our crime teams at major ports, working with the police authorities in the area and the Serious Organised Crime Agency, have successfully prosecuted more than 70 people who have been involved in organising smuggling and trafficking. A specialist team at Heathrow, the Paladin team, detected and helped 184 children last year who we believe were being trafficked.

On drugs and firearms smuggling, seizures of class A drugs reached record levels in 2008 and detection of illegal firearms doubled.

On organised crime directly, our approach has been to set up immigration crime partnerships across the UK. We have worked with the Association of Chief Police Officers on that. This is a difficult argument for me to get across, because it is a matter of where one draws the organisational boundary, but our strategy on a day-to-day basis is to work with local police officers. We have within our ranks more than 300 police officers who are seconded to the UK Border Agency local immigration teams, which work directly in the communities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that border control is not just about the physical border, but is about our towns, villages and countryside, as well as urban areas.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am not sure whether the Minister is about to quote this figure, but I am sure he is painfully aware that, between 1997 and 2006, only 37 employers were found guilty of employing illegal immigrants, although, as he is also probably aware, the Government’s most recent estimate of illegal immigrant numbers, which dates back to 2001, shows there are 430,000 of them. However, only a rather small number of employers have been prosecuted.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

My argument is not that everything that has happened since 1997 has been perfect. Indeed, I have been heavily criticised, as the hon. Gentleman knows because he has done some of the criticising—quite reasonably, because he is doing his job and I do not blame him for that—for criticising the past myself. The sponsorship arrangements that are now in place allow the sponsor to be held to account in a much better way than in the past. On the number of raids, although I will not go into detail, the fact is that we are able to carry out interventions in a much better way now. The critical point is that we are utterly dependent on our partnership working with the police forces to do raids on employers, for example.

The new structures that we have put in place—the Bill is intended to provide a statutory footing for the final pieces of the jigsaw—are delivering successes, although not perhaps as many as the public would like to see. Nevertheless, they are doing so.

On the effectiveness of the action that we take with regard to employers, under the fines that we have put in place we have now successfully, through the civil penalties regime, issued 1,800 fines worth a total of £18 million from February 2008 to the end of April this year. Those fines do not just deter or punish the transgressors; they deter others and, critically, they address the pull factor, which is a major difficulty faced by this country, alongside border control, which the people traffickers exploit. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.

My argument is that the picture is not, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has tried to paint it, one of failure, but one of growing success. There is no disagreement in the Committee or the House on the need to strengthen our borders. The argument is that there should be a single unified agency for UK borders encompassing all immigration, revenue, customs and police functions. The amendment that was tabled and discussed in the other place and is replicated here would not bring that about.

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington proposed an all-encompassing agency. I read his report, which is serious not just because of his experience and the fact that he is a serious member of the other place, but because it addresses the argument in the Green Paper. At the time of the report, the Border and Immigration Agency existed, but not the new UK Border Agency, which incorporates HM Revenue and Customs. The key point in Lord Stevens’s report is that HMRC and the Border and Immigration Agency should be brought together with the agencies that he listed. My argument is that evolution of the agency has brought a large part of Lord Stevens’s intentions together.

To repeat what my noble Friend said, we do not rule out the hon. Gentleman’s proposition. It has merit, but we have some important arguments about the organisation’s remit and the organisational disruption that it could cause. Critically, we have arguments about how best to obtain the co-operation in practice of the existing 43 police authorities in England and Wales, the one in Northern Ireland and the eight in Scotland. How can we get them to work better with us? Our fear is that if we encompass all police functions in the agency, it may be more difficult in practice to obtain the assistance of local police forces.

David Hamilton (Labour, Midlothian)

The forces have evolved to where they are, and some people will always oppose change, but the vast majority of people whom the new force would consist of are the very people who are there already, so it would not be difficult to transfer into one structure. I suggest that in the long term that must be the only way forward. Having one structure makes more sense than having around 49 forces.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I point to two factors. The first is the experience of the British Transport police. Many people, but not the Government, argue that the British Transport police should be integrated with local police forces, especially the Met.

On the second factor, my hon. Friend was quite right when he said that many of the schoolchildren he visits take foreign holidays. That is due to the success of the economic policies of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Disposable income and wealth in this country have increased as the economy has grown, and that has brought about greater overseas travel—60 million of our citizens travel to France and Spain every year.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. I hope that the Minister will connect what he is saying with the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill. He seems to have strayed a little.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

He has gone on a journey.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

How do we police the increase in global movement? Some 285 million people travel in and out of the United Kingdom each year, and that number is growing.

Let me provide some examples of the practical co-operation between those police forces and the UK Border Agency in my hon. Friend’s area. In the aftermath of the Glasgow airport bombings, UKBA identified the suspects together with the Strathclyde and Metropolitan police, and provided the background information for the convictions that were secured. The serious question that we have to ask—not just wearing our party political hats, but as Members of Parliament—is, would we be better equipped to secure such convictions with a single force, as opposed to less co-operation with the local police force, if that partnership was not embedded in?

Operation Warren, again with Strathclyde police, dismantled the largest sham-marriage scam in the United Kingdom—107 marriages—the main facilitator of which was convicted and imprisoned. The second part of Warren secured the arrest and conviction of another of the main organisers. On Operation Grange, which as my hon. Friend knows was to do with the Moira Jones murder, the assistance of UKBA was requested by Strathclyde police to help identify the suspect. The hon. Member for Ashford will say that that co-operation could exist, and of course it could, but my argument is about balance. There are other examples, but I will not detain the Committee with them.

I was talking about the Stevens report, which was undertaken at a time when some of the major functions were not already brought together as they are now. Indeed, on future recommendations, he said, in proposal 5:

“Administering effective and efficient border security would require a range of partnerships with international bodies”,

including the Identity and Passport Service as well. We have not gone that far. One can see that, from the viewpoint of UKBA, there would be some sense in a merger of the two. However, I am not sure whether that would make sense from the viewpoint of a focused delivery of the passport service. Again, I do not dismiss that idea; I take it seriously.

Proposal 2 in the report says that the border protection and security police force would need warranted powers to stop, search and arrest for all offences anywhere within the jurisdiction of the UK. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford about Totnes. Again, I argue that by having a partnership with Devon police—

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

Devon and Cornwall.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Yes, it is one police authority; thank you. I do not believe that if we had a national, single police force, either within UKBA or parallel to it, its focus would mean, as proposal 2 suggests, that we would effectively be able to tackle the Totneses of this world.

The increasing success of the border controls for which I am attempting to build consensus will increasingly highlight visa overstayers and illegal immigrants. In future, the authorities will have much better, more straightforward and comprehensive intelligence on those overstayers that will help in enforcing that new policy and removing illegal immigrants. But the resources that we will require to enforce that policy, particularly from the point of view of deterrence and addressing the pull factor, will involve even more co-operation with the police authorities. That is an important point.

The Green Paper, “From the neighbourhood to the national”, consulted on what model of policing would best operate alongside UKBA at our borders. We received a range of responses. It is true that people in the police forces take different views. The hon. Member for Ashford has prayed in aid some of those views, but I pray in aid the official policy of ACPO. Its formal view remained in favour of a single border police force, rather than an all-encompassing agency, so as a half way between our two positions, there should be a force parallel to UKBA.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

As both the Minister and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington pointed out, the new clause does specifically what ACPO is talking about.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Except that the ACPO response acknowledged that its preferred model would require much further work, planning, and, critically, additional funding.

Kent police—the hon. Gentleman’s force—forcibly rejects the idea of a national force, which is probably why ACPO does not go the whole hog. The Kent force has significant experience—probably the most experience outside the Met and, possibly, Thames Valley as well—and it does not wish to lose that power.

The Association of Police Authorities also strongly opposes the proposal for a national border force. It can see the drawbacks, particularly over the financing. Were we to provide for a new force in the legislation, we would require detailed work on the funding. Would it top slice local authorities’ council tax? How would it be paid for? These are serious matters.

To answer the hon. Member for Ashford, however, we must say what we are doing instead that is better than his proposal. The work that we do with ACPO to enhance the arrangements for our police borders is, therefore, of critical importance. We have a phased approach to that work. First, it focuses on counter-terrorism and special branch activity, developing border policing with the police counter-terrorism network of dedicated regional counter-terrorism units and counter-terrorism intelligence units, which themselves sit alongside special branch. In that regard, would we take just the special branch function into the UKBA, or would we leave it separate? Again, there would be a demarcation line. The next phase is to improve consistency of standards and better co-ordination of border policing, and then to build on our existing collaborative approach with other agencies.

The ACPO president was recently in correspondence with the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing about the shape of that programme of work. By its very nature, some of that activity is not visible to the public; much of special branch’s work is, necessarily, not in the public eye. However, we in the Home Office, and the leadership of the police service, with whom we are engaged on the work, are clear that tangible improvements to public safety have resulted from it. The work is in the context of our Contest strategy.

The proposals refer to arrangements with the police. Central to our strategy is the idea of—indeed the existence of—immigration crime partnerships. They are being put into place around the country and involve UKBA staff locally with local authorities. As I have said, the key to resisting illegal immigration is the pull factor. We believe local crime partnerships are the best way to deal with it; for instance, UKBA staff are embedded in police counter-trafficking teams at Heathrow. I have already mentioned Paladin; experienced detectives from the child abuse investigation command of the Metropolitan police are working with us. UKBA officers are embedded in the human trafficking centre in Sheffield, where their immigration experience and knowledge adds significant value. Since 2007, all border force staff have been required to complete a training package designed to help identify traffickers and their victims.

We believe that those local immigration crime partnerships are better at getting the necessary co-operation with police forces. There is another significant advantage of that approach, which I fear is lacking from the Lord Stevens approach—it is a question of balance and judgment. That advantage is our ability to use immigration law in the wider fight against crime.

We all know that the people who organise crime in our country do not just organise one bit of crime. They do not just do illegal trafficking and let another gang do drugs and another gang do cash laundering, so breaking those criminal gangs has to be done with that in mind. To have a police force that concentrates just on immigration and customs—in fact, a fairly wide remit—does not address the point that to break those gangs a wider focus is needed on the gang than on the activity. I mentioned earlier the Eliot Ness strategy—the gangster Al Capone was caught by a tax accountant, not by a police officer. In that respect, there is a parallel.

As my noble Friend said in the other place, there are compelling arguments for our proposal. There is the argument that I first used about the disruptive effect that it would have were it to take place immediately. I refer the Committee to the comments of the hon. Member for Ashford when we discussed clause 3 on Tuesday morning. He was addressing the amendment about the designation of general customs officers. He made a consistent statement of conservative philosophy, with which I have some sympathy: “If it ain’t bust don’t fix it”. He said:

“While we are discussing the amendment, this would be an appropriate time for the Minister to give us an update on the progress of the merger of the organisations, because he will be more aware than I am that HMRC and UKBA are two very separate organisations with different cultures that he is trying to bring together. One hears of stresses and strains, which is not surprising and is entirely normal, but certainly those stresses and strains are there...Are those different groups of people, with their different training, backgrounds and organisational cultures, actually working together smoothly, or could that be best described as a work in progress?”——[Official Report, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2009; c. 20.]

The hon. Gentleman went on to say that there were many practical issues. He was right, and just as he was right about the general transfer of duties, I am right about the fact that if we brought the police force into the UKBA at this stage of its evolution, we would cause chaos. I pray in aid the good old-fashioned principle of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I now call Mr. Damian Green, perhaps to fix it.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I will address that point directly. It is indeed true that I believe, as all sensible people do, that “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, but the fact is it’s broke—our borders system is not working. It needs to be fixed, which is the purpose of our proposal. Until that point I was about to stand up and say that I was delighted that we were having such a serious debate.

This is a serious proposal, and as the Minister made clear—very honestly—many people who have looked at the matter feel that we need to move down a track towards better and greater integration of all the enforcement bodies that work at our borders and deal with immigration crime both at the borders and beyond. In some ways, the last part of his speech exaggerated the difference between us. All the rest of his speech had made it clear that we all believe that there should be greater integration. There are practical points about which parts are done when and how fast, which is what everyone dealing with these things seriously needs to address, but I do not think anyone doubts the final destination. As I listened to the Minister’s speech, it struck me that whatever happens politically, I would be surprised if something like our proposal were not in place in five years’ time; it certainly will be if there is a Conservative Government after the next election. The thrust of the argument is that we are heading in that direction.

Let me deal with some of the points that were raised, many of which are very good. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that while the amendment was particularly focused on immigration, other things at the border are important. I completely agree with that. I said in my initial remarks that it was not just about stopping illegal immigration, although that is clearly hugely important and is one of the parts of the system that is broken at the moment; it is about human trafficking, drugs, guns and other crimes that are increasingly international. I entirely take his point on that.

The hon. Member for Midlothian made a powerful, passionate speech about the inadequacies of the current arrangement. He made the point that in the form of the transport police we already have a national specialist police force. It may be of interest to him to know that one of the people sitting on the Stevens committee was the newly knighted Sir Ian Johnston, who brought to the committee his experience as the long-time chief constable of the transport police. He was included on the committee precisely because he has run a relatively small, specialist, national force. He believes, as a member of the committee who signed that report, that that is the best way we could operate a border police force. Others have spotted that very important read-across. Since then, this Government have introduced SOCA. I know that it is not a police force but an agency, but it is another attempt, if you like, to nationalise as opposed to regionalise a part of specialist policing operations. The tide of history is flowing in that direction.

I do not wish to enter the debate about what should happen to regional police forces, as neither the shadow Home Secretary nor the shadow Minister for Police Reform would thank me for treading outside my territory. There appears to be a widespread consensus that, in terms of these specialist parts of policing, national activities are preferable. I am glad that the Minister has said that he will not rule it out and that he found the arguments compelling. He had a number of objections and his point about how we get co-operation in practice is a real one. Inevitably, if we are to discourage illegal employers or human traffickers, we will have to do it all over the country; we would have to know that we can operate anywhere. Therefore, in practical terms, we may well have to rely at times on local forces to do that.

The Minister’s argument was that it is working wonderfully well now. [Interruption.] That is unfair; that was a slight parody of what he said. He said that it is working better now—it may be, but it started from a low base. As he knows, it does not work brilliantly now and there are many areas of the country where individual local police have been quoted as saying that they would like to do more in areas such as human trafficking but they have no drivers to do so. They are not funded to do so and they do not score any points on their Home Office public service agreements by doing so. It is almost as if they are discouraged from doing things in an area that would be of central interest to a border police force.

The Minister says that it will be easier to get local police forces to co-operate with UKBA than it would be with a border police force. I disagree with him about that. It seems overwhelmingly likely that if two parts of the police family talk to each other and, if necessary—if they are making large strategic decisions—chief constable talks to chief constable, there would be more co-operation than there is now. We have never tried that, so neither of us can be definitive about it, but that may lead to a better system.

The Minister’s second argument was that we have so much more intelligence now that we will reach the stage where we know where the vast majority of overstayers are; that would generate a requirement for more enforcement activity. If that is the worst problem that we have to face in three or four years’ time, we have made a tremendous step forward. By that I mean actually knowing where thousands of illegal immigrants are. I am not sure whether I share the Minister’s optimism about the beneficial effects of technology. I hope that he is right, and if he is right, we have to organise the enforcement activity, which brings us back to the previous argument about how best to get the national border force and the regional police forces working together. As I say, we differ on that matter.

The Minister makes the point that organisations such as the Kent police and the Association of Police Authorities do not like the idea. I have spoken at length to the Kent police about the matter. I am an MP for Kent and I know the force well. It does its job effectively and has developed expertise in this matter. From a national perspective, it is important that we do not lose that expertise, and if possible we should spread the practice to other forces as well. Again, it seems that there is a prima facie case for arguing that if the people who are doing a good job in Kent are part of a force that is working all around the border, then we will improve performance in other areas.

The Minister makes the point about cost, which is obviously a serious point. How we deploy the money spent on the police in the most effective way at a time when economic failure has made the public finances a train wreck is obviously a problem that faces existing Ministers and will face future ones as well.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

We costed at around £100 million our proposals for a UK border force. Does the hon. Gentleman have a figure for what he believes his proposals would cost?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I do not, and not because I am just not giving a figure but because it depends on what we do, when we do it, the speed of integration and what duplications there may be within the existing structure. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I do not have an exact figure to give him now, but one will come. The detailed argument that we are having about when we integrate and at what stage we do it has a significant impact on the costs.

The Minister’s final point was about some of the beneficial things that have happened, all of which boil down to embedding immigration expertise inside the police. The various specific local and regional examples that he gave were about why policing has become more effective, and it is precisely because there are now people who are full-time experts on immigration crime inside the police. I agree with that; it is a very important step forward and precisely why we are trying to make it permanent with a border police force. As we all agree that immigration-related crime and cross-border crime is big and will be an increasing problem, it seems to me that making that kind of beneficial sharing of expertise permanent and nationwide is precisely why we argued for a border police force and why we have tabled the new clause, which I commend to the Committee.

New Clause 5

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is fair to say that, over the past couple of months, the issue of the Gurkhas has received a significant and appropriate airing, both in this place and elsewhere. It is therefore not my intention—and I am sure that you would not allow it, Sir Nicholas—to go back over what has happened in recent years. Members are very familiar with the issue and will know that, in 2004, the Government changed the rules to allow Gurkhas who had served for four years or more to remain in the UK. However, those changes applied only to Gurkhas discharged from the British Army on or after 1 July 1997.

I think that all Members would agree that the treatment of the Gurkhas has not been the finest hour of this or—possibly—past Governments. However, it has afforded us a most memorable piece of cult viewing that, I am sure, is still circulating widely on YouTube. I suspect that, to this day, the Minister wakes up in a cold sweat every night worried about whether Joanna Lumley is going to doorstep him that morning. I even considered threatening him with Joanna Lumley over the Chagos island issue earlier in the debate. I hope he has recovered from his experience, although those who watched the ambush observed how effective it was. All future Ministers need to study what happened, perhaps to avoid similar things happening to them.

I shall not continue along that line of argument, because I am sure that you would cut me short, Sir Nicholas. However, Members might be interested to know that today the 2nd Battalion of Gurkhas were given the freedom of the town of Folkestone; so nationally there is recognition of the very important role that they have played—some 200,000 soldiers, two world wars and so on. We know that the Government have finally responded to the issue, and I understand that the latest Government position is that guidance will be issued to ensure that the Gurkhas are treated fairly.

One of my members of staff has had discussions with the Home Office on that point, however, and I have just come from an event at which a senior civil servant pointed out that guidance can very easily be disregarded. It can very easily be substituted with later guidance. So new clause 5 would enshrine in law what I believe Members of all parties want the Government to do. It would not afford any wriggle room. It would take the action that many Members believe needs to be taken and allow us to take it without further delay. I hope that the Minister will consider it to be a very straightforward and helpful way of ensuring that this issue, which has proved painful for him in particular, is finally put to bed and resolved.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing us a quick run round the Gurkha course again. Enough has been said on the subject of Joanna Lumley and on ambushes, but I must say that one of the Minister’s unique places in history, for which he will be immortalised, is as the only middle-aged man in history who looked that uncomfortable that close to Joanna Lumley. [Laughter.] As has been said, it cannot have been his most enjoyable week.

The serious question that I put to the Minister is, what is now happening? It would be useful to know. We had the Sturm und Drang of the parliamentary defeat and the Government U-turn, but there has been a deafening silence ever since, so this is the ideal time for him to at least give the Committee a timetable for putting into effect what the then Home Secretary told the House and explain what the new system will be and how it will work. I appreciate that there are many details to work out, but the Government have had several weeks in which to do that.

It goes without saying that we all admire and respect what the Gurkhas have been doing and still do for this country. We believe that they have done great service that deserves not only our respect, but the reward of being allowed to settle in this country. It would be better, not least for the Minister’s comfort, if there was no sense that the eventual solution was being delayed, because otherwise he will have the Gurkha campaigners on his back again. My friendly advice is that I do not think that that would be a happy or healthy position for him to be in.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

To the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for tabling the new clause, I say: thanks. I do not know about middle-aged men being uncomfortable, but sometimes in ministerial life it is the worst of two evils to put oneself in that situation, but that is one for the memoirs.

My understanding is that the new clause, tabled by the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Rochdale, is intended to remove two requirements from the rules relating to indefinite leave to enter or indefinite leave to remain for former Gurkhas. Those two requirements are: the requirement to be discharged from the British Army in Nepal on completion of engagement on or after 1 July 1997, and the requirement to have been discharged from the British Army not more than two years prior to the date on which the application is made. That would mean that Gurkhas discharged prior to July 1997 could qualify for indefinite leave to enter or remain under the immigration rules.

In response to the new clause’s first provision, I can say that the revised policy announced by the Home Secretary on 21 May 2009 had the same effect in that regard as the new clause, so that provision is already there. The new clause’s second provision would have the effect of removing the time limit for applications for indefinite leave for all former Gurkhas, not just those discharged prior to 1 July 1997. I will explain why we wish, on that specific point, to resist the new clause. The policy announced on 21 May, following consideration, meets the concerns of Parliament on the issue. That led subsequently to new draft guidelines, based on the seminar of the Home Affairs Committee, to which we were very grateful.

The Select Committee fulfilled its role superbly in helping Parliament and advising Government. I was glad that we were able to use that conduit, given that Parliament was suffering severe public criticism. Although I disagreed with the decision of the House, I said that evening that I respected its decision, and I put my shoulder to the wheel to deliver what Parliament had insisted upon. The Select Committee was beneficial in helping with that. The subsequent process was to publish new draft guidelines to meet the requests of the pre-1997 Gurkhas; they were shared with the Select Committee and the Gurkhas’ representatives, including Miss Lumley. Agreement and an understanding were reached.

The criteria for the pre-1997 people were therefore that soldiers must have served for at least four years, but there is no time limit on their application—a critical difference from what people expected. There is not a two-year window, and there are a number of reasons for that. One was a recognition of the practicalities—of how we could inform people in Nepal of their rights. Another was that we did not want to create a rush that we could not handle administratively, which would cause difficulties with housing and so on. For the pre-1997 people there is no cut-off point.

The difficulty with the second implication of new clause 5 for post-1997 Gurkhas is the critical principle called for by their representatives—indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House argued for it—that they should have parity with other Commonwealth servicemen and women in our armed forces. That would require a two-year cut-off point, after four years of service. In other words, it would give the post-1997 Gurkhas something better than was given to the Commonwealth soldiers. That is not what is being pushed for by the representatives, and no Government would be able to adhere to it because, in effect, it would open up a retrospective right for Commonwealth soldiers. That would be unmanageable, and not required.

I hope that I have answered the hon. Member for Ashford. The new guidance is out, and a statement has been made to the House. I will be bringing my life-size cut-out of Miss Lumley to future meetings, as my recognition rating in my constituency is significantly higher than it was before that episode. I have never been the victim—if victim is the right word—of such jealousy. More seriously, I hope that I have met the point being made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The Minister says that the new clause is imperfect, in that it will have unintended consequences in relation to parity with soldiers from the Commonwealth. However, it would have been within the Minister’s remit to address the issue himself. If there were imperfections in the new clause, he could have dealt with them. He did not deal with the question of guidance being exactly that. I understand that civil servants can disregard guidance. I presume that it can relatively easily be modified—changed, deleted, added to and so on. We have an opportunity in the Bill to address the issue in a more permanent way than that which is currently offered by the guidance. The Government should have taken that opportunity, and I therefore intend to stick with my new clause and not withdraw the motion that it be read a Second time.

New Clause 8

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss

New clause 9—Qualifying period to provide education and health protection—

‘(1) A person under the qualifying period shall be treated as a person settled in the United Kingdom for the purposes of all regulations made under—

(a) the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (c. 46);

(b) the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983 (c. 40);

(c) the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986/594 (N.I. 3));

(d) the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989/306);

(e) the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (c. 30);

(f) the Education (Student Support) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998;

(g) the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21);

(h) the Higher Education Act 2004 (c. 8); and

(i) the Higher Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (S.I., 2005/1116 (N.I. 5)).

(2) In section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (exclusion from benefits), in subsection (9) after “EEA state”, insert “or a person with probationary citizenship leave”.’.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

With these two new clauses—the last, I think, to be debated today—we return to the issue of probationary citizenship, which is a matter that we discussed in one of last week’s sittings. I will deal with the new clauses together because they both relate to what constitutes probationary citizenship. The Government’s view is very much that probationary citizenship is not about citizenship, but that it is a stage at which citizenship has not been reached. The new clauses state that probationary citizenship is citizenship that has been achieved but is under probation—if people understand the semantic difference. The new clauses, therefore, are looking at ensuring that assistance is available through local authorities to deal with homelessness—the subject of new clause 8—and looking at what assistance is available and what fees should apply when seeking to access services such as education and health—new clause 9.

As the Minister is aware, under the current proposals a holder of probationary citizenship would be ineligible for 15 different benefits that are available to those with indefinite leave to remain, and overseas rates would apply for further and higher education. That means that people whom we are hoping will soon become citizens of the United Kingdom and whose circumstances will often be difficult will find it hard to afford further and higher education, in particular, and may find themselves unable financially, for example, to access the national health service. It is an issue of principle about what probationary citizenship is, how we should view people who are going through that phase and how they should be treated in comparison with what applied previously in relation to indefinite leave to remain. I hope that the Minister will consider the new clauses carefully.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The hon. Gentleman is asking a perfectly valid question. Presumably, the new clauses would, among other things, entitle a group of people to benefits earlier than they would be entitled under the Government’s proposals. I shall ask him the question that he asked me a few minutes ago: what costings will be involved and what will be their effect?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I have to be honest and state that I do not have the precise figures. When the Minister responds, perhaps he will set out the projections for such a change. The new clauses still enable us to debate the principle of probationary citizenship and people’s perception of what a probationary citizen should be, matters to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will also respond.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clauses because they allow us to explore an area that we did not deal with specifically in our earlier debates. The fundamental tenet of the proposals for the path to citizenship idea is that the rights and benefits of citizens are reserved for those who have earned the right to them——the route that we have discussed before. The Government recognise the significant contribution to this country both economically and socially that migrants can make. Nevertheless, it has been a long-standing policy that those entering the United Kingdom on the work or family route are expected to support themselves without access to benefits. There are, of course, some caveats to that, particularly in respect of the primary care and accident and emergency areas of public health, where it is clearly in everyone’s interests that that should be the case.

All Members will know the phrase, “recourse to public funds”. It was dealt with in part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and has existed for many years. People on temporary leave to remain under those routes do not have access to benefit. That view is supported widely and we believe that that policy should be clarified in respect of the probationary citizen proposals, so that everyone is clear that those benefits derive from citizenship but not from probationary citizenship.

For the avoidance of doubt, I want to be clear that such a provision does not apply to migrants on the protection route. They are dealt with separately. It is right, given the special circumstances that led people on that route to the United Kingdom, for them to get access to benefits if asylum is granted. I am not talking about cases in which asylum has not been granted; there are different arrangements there.

The restrictions on access to benefits and services at the probationary citizen stage will apply to migrants on the work route—highly skilled and skilled workers under tiers 1 and 2 of the points-based system. Secondly, the restrictions will apply to those on the family route—that is, family members of British citizens and, slightly different, under the current category of permanent residents. Further, those people on the family and work routes will have full access to national insurance contribution-based benefits on the same basis as others. Those benefits are contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance, contribution-based incapacity benefit, contributory employment and support allowance, retirement pension, maternity allowance and bereavement benefit. If someone has been paying tax and national insurance—they have made a contribution—they are of course entitled to get their money back, to put it in colloquial terms. That will apply with probationary citizenship. What is not applied under our proposals are the non-contributory benefits, which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is probing and pushing on. We do not believe that to be anti-foreigner in any way. We are putting forward to the probationary citizen arrangements whereby, if people want to become citizens and build a life in our country, they will need to demonstrate through the criteria discussed what is available to them. That does not include the non-contributory benefits.

The proposed new clause gives probationary citizens access to social housing and homelessness assistance in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am not point-scoring, but it does not do that for England and Wales. I do not know whether that was deliberate, but if it was, I thought it was extremely clever, because it made it more difficult for me, given the position of the Scottish Executive.

The situation at the moment is that, once granted indefinite leave to remain, a migrant gets full access to benefits, subject to the same eligibility criteria as everyone else, apart from the right to vote, if one includes that as a benefit. Currently, an economic migrant will normally be entitled to apply for ILR after five years in the UK, and a spouse after two years. The benefits available once a migrant is granted ILR include income support, employment and support allowance, housing benefit, carer’s allowance, disability living allowance and access to local authority housing.

Under the earned citizenship proposals, by way of contrast, the economic migrant will access mainstream benefits and social housing, if they are successful, six years after arrival. It may help the Committee if I refer, for the record, to the latest impact assessment, of June 2009, which gives some statistics estimating the range of potential transfers to be in the order of £860 million to £2.1 billion over a 10-year period. I caution against comparison with the earlier figure of £350 million, which if my memory serves me was over a five-year period. The difference reflects that, as time passes, the policy kicks in for more people. The assumptions in the impact assessment are in annexe A, I believe at paragraph 42.

The legislation has got things right, based on the long-standing principle of access to public funds. If such a clause to meet that objective were in place—I may be being unfair, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is asking a question as much as making a proposal—the cost would run into significant billions of pounds. Having said that, as everyone who deals with such matters knows, access to benefits is a complex area because one also has to look at the situation of the spouse. The no recourse to public funds test applies to the spouse who may get, or may argue for, access consequential to the arrival of the spouse. That is an important point, which makes the area extremely complex.

Say a wife with children comes from America to live with her spouse in this country and that entitles the family to access to benefits that the father would not get on his own, and so on. There are also examples in reverse. Under our earned citizenship proposals, there are no such complications that I am aware of—I say with my hand on my heart. I hope that the principle behind this is accepted. I believe that it achieved consensus in the other place. I do not think that there was a division on that point.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I sense that the Minister is drawing to a close. One thing that has yet again sprung out of this debate is how unfortunate the phrase “probationary citizenship” is. Because of the history of the usage of the word in this country, probation sounds like something given when an offence has been committed. I am sure that before all this eventually passes, it cannot be beyond the wit of Ministers and their officials to come up with a better phrase, such as “qualifying citizenship”. In the scheme of things, that is a relatively trivial point, but the current wording sends out the wrong message, so I hope that the Minister can find another word.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I have known the hon. Gentleman for 20 years—we have worked together in different capacities—and he is consistent in his liberalism on this matter. I understand the point that he makes. I have checked the definition of probation, and as he says, it is normally used in the context of someone who is on probation. In Oldham, that means that if someone misbehaves they go back into the clink. Its proper meaning is not punitive although we have not come up with a better term. The word makes the point that someone is aspiring to citizenship, rather like an apprentice in a workplace who is aspiring to be a skilled worker. In my experience, the apprentice is proud of that title because it implies a self-esteem that is leading to a status and it should be seen in that context. I advise the Committee to look at the word’s literal translation into Urdu, where it does not have the context that the hon. Gentleman asks about. I did check that, although not for any reasons of self-interest, God forbid.

The impact assessment makes its assumptions on numbers that are our best guesstimates based on previous experience of applications for probationary citizenship. I would not want the migration group to take those figures and say that they are our projections of what will actually happen in terms of numbers because it will draw wrong conclusions and probably project the population of the country to be 120 million within five years. I slightly jest, but we can base our impact assessment only on our knowledge so far.

I will not read out the benefits that are affected in the list in front of me because it runs to two pages. However, I hope that I have made the point that it is fair that contributory benefits should be available, but non-contributory benefits should not.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

May I pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford on whether “qualified” or, possibly “transitional” is a better word than probationary? That is the point I was making about the belief that people have in the person who is seeking to become a citizen. I agree that describing that phase as “probationary citizenship” is regrettable, because it casts doubt on that applicant’s probity. I hope that the Minister can find a different phraseology.

I listened carefully to the Minister. Clearly, it was not the intention that the proposed new clause should apply only to Scotland and Northern Ireland. For that reason alone, I will not press the matter to a Division. He has done a good job of explaining some of the issues relating to the proposed new clauses, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I now ask the Minister to move the motion that certain written evidence already reported to the House—

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I do not believe that we divided on new clause 10.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

It has already been debated and I was not aware that the Opposition wished to press it to a Division. If that is the case, I am perfectly happy that they have their wish.

New Clause 10

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

So that the Committee is fully aware, let me say that new clause 10 was debated with amendment 57. I say to Her Majesty’s Opposition that it would have been appropriate for them to have advised me that they wished to press it to a Division.

Mr. Burnsrose—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Are you going to question the Chairman?

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

No. I was going to give an explanation and an apology.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Let me conclude what I was saying. It would have been appropriate for us to have been advised that a Division was requested on new clause 10.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

I give you my abject apologies, Sir Nicholas. I had just assumed that when we came in the proceedings to new clause 10, it would be automatically disposed of, like similar amendments, even though we had debated it. If that is wrong, it is my fault.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

The Opposition Whip has been duly courteous. I think we can say that there has been a misunderstanding. I fully accept the explanation and as a result, we have dealt with things in entirely the correct way. This has been an excellent Committee, so we do not want in any way to criticise what has happened, but the requirement of a Division has been honoured.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I rise briefly, although we have much time left. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green is an experienced Whip and I thank him and his counterparts for the organisation of these proceedings. We have not had internal knives and we have not felt under undue pressure. Ministers are often required to read regulations and policies into Hansard, and in this area of law in particular, there are many thousands of people outside the House in the immigration world who read every word very carefully, so I apologise to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members if they are fed up with listening to my Lancashire tones, but that is required sometimes. I thank my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford for organising matters.

I also thank other members of the Committee. I try to build consensus for a Bill by working on its principles in formal and informal circles, but I also try to answer as comprehensively as possible the questions that hon. Members put from both sides of the Committee. This is a very complex area of law. The hon. Member for Ashford teased me about the number of Bills, and a draft simplification Bill is coming forward. The first part of the Bill has largely an organisational impact. The second part of the Bill will have profoundly beneficial long-term impacts on this country. That is why trying to secure consensus on it has been particularly important.

I thank the Clerks, who as ever have acted with superb professionalism. I thank the Bill team from the Home Office and across Whitehall who have worked on it for many months. I have been, in one capacity or another, responsible for 17 Bills in the House and I can say that the team who have been helping me and the Opposition in briefings are superb. I am very proud of them and grateful to them. We did, of course, get a run through the mill in the other place and I can tell you, Sir Nicholas, that West of Spithead is not somebody who abandons ship lightly, nor does he give in to an argument easily, so we have benefited. I did not want this Bill to start in the House of Lords, but it did, and I confess now that it is a better Bill for that.

Finally, I thank you, Sir Nicholas, for your chairmanship, with Miss Begg, and Mr. Gale at one sitting. I think that you know the esteem in which I hold you as a Chair and, indeed, as a constituency MP. I can tell the Committee that I often disembark from the train at Macclesfield to get my hair cut. There is a photograph of you cutting the ribbon in the hairdresser’s from some years ago. If I could get that sort of recognition in my constituency, perhaps I would have your majority. [Interruption.] The haircut we will be silent on. Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for your chairmanship and your wisdom and guidance, as ever.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

May I also extend my thanks to you, Sir Nicholas? As the Minister ended with the Chairman, I shall start with the Chairman, and with the small piece of advice for the Minister that if he wants to have his picture in hairdressers in his constituency, perhaps he should get his hair cut in his own constituency and not yours, Sir Nicholas; but that is just a tip.

You have served the Committee very well, Sir Nicholas, and I thank both you and Miss Begg for your firmness and courtesy. I thank Mr. Gale for the short, whirlwind sitting when he proceeded at such a pace that he was moving on even before the Government Whip had got to his feet to move the Adjournment. We would have been there for many hours had Mr. Gale had his way, but we would have finished the Bill several sittings earlier. I thank also the Clerks for their help, especially at the start of the Committee. It has gone smoothly and I am grateful for that.

I agree with the Minister that the Bill is better for having started in the Lords. Their lordships’ debates were of an extremely high calibre and illustrated the pinch points of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for effectively conceding one of our amendments and for promising that the Government will implement that in relation to the provision of statistics. I am also grateful to him for promising to take away and look at what is still the most contentious part of the Bill. No doubt we will have further and better debates on that in the Bill’s later stages. I am glad that the Committee has proceeded so smoothly, Sir Nicholas.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I echo the thanks given to those who have participated in making the Committee a smooth-running and satisfactory affair. In the past, I have dreaded the Committee stages of Bills because of their complexity, but this one has been very well managed. I thank you, Sir Nicholas, for chairing this sitting and others so effectively, and I thank Miss Begg and Mr. Gale for their roles.

I thank the Minister in particular, as he has been very straightforward and courteous. He has done a very effective job of explaining complicated issues in a way that has been extremely helpful and that will be well documented in Hansard. He has also made some helpful comments about discretion and how it can be applied in appropriate circumstances. Clearly, some issues still require further investigation, such as how active participation and volunteering are going to work, as there are still some difficulties there. Apart from that, this has been a productive and positive experience, which I look forward to repeating at some point.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Perhaps I should have the last word from the Chair. I congratulate the Minister, the shadow Minister and his colleague, and the spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party, on the constructive and positive way in which they have dealt with this important Bill. It has gone through very smoothly because of the co-operation between both sides of the Committee. I sometimes think that such co-operation shows Parliament at its best—doing the job that it is here to do.

I thank the Clerk for the guidance and advice that she has needed to give to me from time to time. I thank the police, the doorkeepers and, of course, the very important Hansard writers, because it is always helpful to have everything that we have said recorded truly and properly for prosperity.

I listened to the debate on the Gurkhas with some interest, and I am happy to tell the Minister and the Committee that the regiment with which I had the honour to serve, the 14th/20th King’s Hussars, now the King’s Royal Hussars, had the great honour of being able to wear the Gurkhas’ cross kukris on our uniform jacket because of the battles we had fought with the Gurkhas in past campaigns.

I thank the Committee for dealing with the Bill in such a constructive way, and I shall pass on to my co-Chairmen, Miss Anne Begg and Roger Gale, the thanks and appreciation that have been expressed to us all. We were happy to do it, and the Committee has been a good one.