Common Travel Area retained

THE BRITISH government has removed a clause from a controversial immigration Bill which would have required the showing of passports…

THE BRITISH government has removed a clause from a controversial immigration Bill which would have required the showing of passports from those travelling between the Republic and Britain.

The Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill, designed to heighten protection from international terror and to cause immigrants to the UK to “earn” British citizenship, was published in January.

However, following Democratic Unionist Party opposition and a list of amendments from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, immigration minister Phil Woolas said the Bill would be changed. The Common Travel Area including Britain, the island of Ireland and the Channel Isles will be retained.

The Home Office in London has maintained: “There are no plans to introduce fixed controls on the land border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland or on routes from the Crown dependencies to the United Kingdom.”

READ MORE

Responding to the measure late on Tuesday, East Antrim DUP MP Sammy Wilson claimed the Bill would have “radically changed the United Kingdom’s borders” placing a “very tight border around Great Britain but would have left Northern Ireland exposed and isolated to those involved in international terrorism”.

The measure would have treated Northern Ireland people as second-class citizens, he alleged: “Due to the Bill requiring everyone travelling into Great Britain to be subject to the same scrutiny as an international traveller, our ports would have had to undergo significant infrastructure upgrades. Meanwhile, it would have stopped last-minute travel by anyone from Northern Ireland as travel arrangements would have had to be made well in advance,” he said.

The cross-party defeat of this Bill is a victory for common sense, he added.

Mr Woolas told MPs: “There can be no compromise on the option of CTA – we either make this necessary change now or we do not . . . but it’s clear to me from the discussions that we’ve had that this clause is not acceptable across the floor of this house and is not acceptable in the other place [the House of Lords].”