Radical immigration plan 'would hand UK border controls to French'

By Robert Verkaik, Home Affairs Editor

Britain could hand over its continental border controls to the French under radical plans to meet Government spending cuts to be finalised tomorrow.

The proposals would end the dual immigration system at the ports of Calais, Bologne, Dunkirk and the Channel Tunnel at Coquelles, where UK officers operate security and immigration checks.

It would leave French immigration in sole control of cross-Channel security, The Independent has learnt. A similar proposal has been outlined for Eurostar immigration controls in Paris. The highly controversial move would reverse the cross-Channel controls introduced under the Labour Government in 2004.

Last night British immigration staff denounced the proposals, claiming that the policy would amount to "handing over the control of UK borders to another country". Paul O'Connor, the Home Office group secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), warned that the cuts would lead to more illegal immigration.

Under alternative measures, which would leave the "juxtaposed controls" in place, staff would be offered relocation packages so that UK Border Agency (UKBA) immigration officers could move across the Channel.

Both the proposals would save millions of pounds from the £2.4bn UKBA budget by reducing allowances and travel costs between the UK and France. Under the present scheme, immigration staff are paid for travelling to and from the checkpoints.

The UKBA has earmarked 7,000 job cuts over the next four years, ahead of the Comprehensive Spending Review, which will see its budget slashed by between 25 per cent and 40 per cent.

Unions fear that this will lead to more use of private security companies, such as G4S, to take up the slack at a lower cost. But Mr O'Connor said that this would go against the previous Government's promise not to "part-privatise" the UKBA.

"That promise was given by ministers on the floor of the House," said Mr O'Connor. "In terms of frontline security, our members are the first port of call to maintain proper border controls. If they decide to cut one in three this country will be less safe."

Lin Homer, chief executive of the UKBA, said: "Our priority is always to keep the border secure and to control migration."

She added: "The new Government is focused on reducing the public deficit and the UK Border Agency will take its share of cuts to public service budgets. We will not know our final budget until the Spending Review is announced.

"Through modernisation and new technologies, the UK Border Agency was already working to reduce its budget and ensure value for money for the taxpayer. We will build on the progress that we have made. Where we need to make further reductions, we will focus on cutting overheads, layers of management and support services to protect frontline services."

In an agreement between the Government and the then French Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, all UK-bound passengers travelling from Calais and Dunkirk are subject to checks by UK immigration officers before they travel. Passengers are refused permission to set off for the UK if they do not have the proper paperwork.

The move, which was designed to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to reach Britain, was part of a package of measures that included the closure of the Sangatte detention centre.

In 2008, UKBA officers searched more than a million vehicles and stopped 28,000 attempts to enter the country illegally. From January until the end of July 2009, technology used in checks at ports helped in the seizure of illegal drugs worth more than £143m, and British officers seized in excess of 340 million cigarettes, representing a potential loss of £65m in tax revenue.

The agreement on immigration controls is a reciprocal one, and French border police are stationed at Dover to check passengers travelling to France, extending the controls they already operate at the Eurostar stations of Waterloo and Ashford, and at the Eurotunnel Terminal at Cheriton.

  • Guest
    Why do successive British Goverments keep on coming up with dumber and dumber ideas.?
  • mgu1
    The UK authorities do NOT lock children up. They house the children of (mostly bogus) Asylum seekers ALONGSIDE their children so as not to split the family up in Immigration Detention Centres that provide everything from religious, education, dietry and legal advice FREE to them while they await the result of their claim. Many of them claim to be gay (although they have 2 wives and numerous children or are claiming Asylum because they owe money back home. However most only claim Asylum AFTER being caught working illegally (cash in hand paying no tax contributions here) after entering as a visitor many years before. What are we suggesting here, that the Army with guns poised would prevent this? Or should we just allow them Asylum after they have clearly abused the Asylum system? Most are not genuine Asylum Seekers (some are) but most are simply economic migrants who work illegally and send most of what they earn back home. For many that are granted and are given a British Passport the first time they use it is on a flight back home to the country they apparently fear. As for the French controlling OUR Borders? When they learn to control their own then we may be able to look at this idea.
  • MaSek12
    I have and it is worse than you can imagine. Do you leave your front door open at night and when you go away on holiday? No? How elitist of you! There may be a few unlucky rapists, murderers, etc with nowhere to sleep! Shame on you!
  • discussing22
    the brown economy, inherited from major and thatcher continues as we speak. anyway sweat shops have been keeping the empire afloat for years. the difference you speak of is that these ones are domestic. god help us if people actually start migrating towards the source of capital. i think you need to be careful describing people as 'unwanted', many people leave behind friends and family who want them very much. also, the points based system of 'managed migration' under labour brought in many more 'skilled' and educated workers than other routes in. britain 'wants' privileged workers. that's what immigration controls are all about. they enforce a hierarchy of people based upon race and privilege. some people get full rights and entitlements, others get none and have to resort to working in what is called the 'black' economy
  • mgu1
    What a stupid thing to say! The children are not 'locked up.' They are, however housed in an Immigration detention Centre (NOT a prison) alongside their parents because otherwise they would be seperated from their parents while caseworkers listen to their (99% bogus) Asylum claim. These centres provide for every need from education and religion to legal advice. If you did some research you would probably change your mind about the system. Eg. Jamaicans with 2 wives and 6 children and a criminal record as long as your arm claiming Asylum in the UK because " I is gay" or people claimimg asylum because they owe money back home and cant afford to pay it back. This is the reality of how the system is abused.
  • simcal
    It's very easy to be dismissive of her view, because of how she expressed it. She is a late middle aged woman who I can imagine did not quite have the same educational benefits as you perhaps! Only someone who is being pedantic would be unable to grasp the point she was trying to present. Perhaps big brother in the shape of New Labour would still be in power, if they had not turned discussion of immigration as something politically incorrect.
  • Duffy: You can?t say anything about the immigrants because you?re saying you?re ? but all these eastern Europeans coming in, where are they flocking from? Relating a concern felt by many...hmmm I'm concerned she doesn't realise where Eastern Europe is.
  • MaSek12
    Your first three words are very accurate.
  • ConfusedbystupidBrits
    Because that would be very stupid. Look at the news many illegals are already in Europe remember Sangatte. So Schengan doesn't work to well does it.
  • discussing22
    well you are already paying for the war. did you come back because they deported you to where you came from? ha ha
  • discussing22
    i don't think that equating people at the border with 'rapists and murderers etc..' is fair. that kind of statement is propaganda mate. shame on you
  • MaSek12
    Boy, have you ever lost the plot!
  • MaSek12
    Because:
    a] We have to pay for the dumb ideas
    b] They do not care a fig about us.
    c] It reduces the tax burden on the rich - the only people they care about.
    d] It takes our mind off the fact that we are being shafted.
  • MaSek12
    Arresting people and then...? Oh yes! Releasing them!- not deporting them back
    where they came from. PS: Having spent many years in Muslim countries I can
    tell you that they are not even slightly interested in 'Democracy' but will
    take every opportunity to exploit us.
    By the way I have not invaded anywhere for several days so why should I have
    to pay benefits to those disturbed by the Bush/ Blair/ Neo- Con jew gang?
  • Correction : it was anti-democratic British pols who effectively privatised immigration during the Crone's reign - the purpose was to enable the unwanted of other societies to flood your living space as fodder for a black economy that (with more than a little help from the web of organised economic crime syndicates known as 'the City') kept the Brown economy afloat and Blair in power
  • discussing22
    good to see someone who accepts that border controls infringe the human rights convention. nice one
  • discussing22
    one difference is they would be catching Afghani and Iraqi refugees rather than creating them. that's nice isn't it. invade two countries, going in there with a message of democracy, then come back home and militarise your border in order to keep the refugees out. Not sure what you mean by no hindrance. have you personally looked into it? the French national riot police (the crs) are on continual rotating shifts in Calais smashing up camps and squats, arresting people, using tear gas and pepper spray
  • MikeBoyes
    Yes, but isn't the point relevant in any discussion of border controls?
  • discussing22
    i think france has a rather generous welfare culture as well. why are the miimgranys not staying there i wonder? if they are coming for the benefits i mean. let me see what my little book of propaganda tells me... here we are. Q. why do the generic miimgranys not stay in the other equropean countries with big welfare states A. its because we are too soft. we are practically commies. better build more immigration prisons or get the army out there with guns (guns are good like justice) oh no! we are being too soft! we just killed a man on a plane, we send them to the worst houses and only give them 35 quid a week benefits and still they come!
  • For as long as British immigration policy is dictated by the EU there is precious little point in having our own border staff. If the French want to fast-track 'undesirables' through their territory and into the UK they can already do so. Only once Britain either leaves the EU or resiles from the EU Convention on Human Rights does it make any sense to reinstate border controls.
  • discussing22
    hmmm. so unions are supposed to represents workers how come the pcs let the UKBA enforcers of racial privilege in? borders are one more example of the hierarchy of human beings on offer today. inside the border lets call them 'chavs' outside 'illegals'. how many people writing on this post have visited to calais and checked out the border for themselves?
  • davdos
    The Uk is now the dustbin of Europe and this contemptuous move by the French and Germans proves it.
  • This article doesn't mention people claiming asylum, it refers only to illegal immigration. They are two different things.
  • Legal_Beagle
    Germans + towels. Very funny!
  • In theory you are correct. But trusting in the deep rooted xenophobic values of the French, its more likely (and more probable from as far as enforceable immigration legislation goes) that the undesirables would be 'sent back to where they came from'.

  • simcal
    To join Shengen would be like surrendering. One more instance of surrendering power to Brussels. It's always middle class people who don't give a shit about immigration, because they are insulated from it's effects. After all, didn't our last excuse for a PM call that woman a bigot, just for relating a concern felt by many.
  • Why bother to have any controls sell them off to the highest bidder. French running border controls while the Germans run the trains. We may as well sack this lot and throw in the towel.
  • ...
  • MaSek12
    The French dislike us so much that they already pass immigrants through with almost no hindrance once they know that they are Britain-bound. Here's a novel idea: Why not really take charge of our own borders instead of playing at it?
    Get rid of the ridiculous UK Border Muppets and put soldiers on the border, searching trucks and coaches and patrolling the tunnel instead of wasting their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.. What a difference that would make.
  • littleglimmer
    You haven't been paying attention to the behaviour of French authorities to immigrants ....
  • littleglimmer
    Yes. Today Cameron will announce the results of the US review of our defence budget.
  • littleglimmer
    Ah! you got it! The savings on costs are there of course, but the real reason is that the problem of immigration - one of the main characteristics of Tory support - cannot and will not be solved by the Tories. Already Theresa May has made herself look foolish by trying to pander to the xenophobic quarter. This is all about making someone else responsible for the failure to tackle the problem.
  • simcal
    What I have never understood, is that asylum seekers arriving in this country, unless directly from their own country, must have travelled through a third safe country. They are obliged to claim asylum in the first safe country. Does this mean france is not?
  • If we do away with overly generous and stupid welfare culture, the miimgranys won't want to come anyway. That's the only attraction.
  • absolutely, join Shengen. The only reason for border controls from europe seems to be to preserve union jobs.
  • CS124
    This sounds like a another bad idea! If we are making cuts, and we know the rest of Europe are, what will prevent the French from making their cuts at the borders and moving the problem to the UK?
  • Why not join Shengen and have done with it?
  • brighterthanyou
    Given the thugs who work at British border control, this sounds like a good idea.
  • altthought
    Britains no longer a country in the true sense of the word, the French may as well finish it off.
  • Dumb idea. If A country has the opportunity to control both sides of a border, it effectively becomes an open door for the controlling country into the country whose borders it is managing. France could potentially let in any Tom, Dick or Harry into the UK and putting barriers up if we don't want them and try to send them back. The UK needs to retain the final say on who enters the UK. Therefore the UK only needs to outsource the security, not the immigration control. I would rather have French police guarding the UK borders than some British private security firm that's staffed with lazy immigrants who let their foreign kinsfolk through.
  • But what if the French decide to extradite their foreign undesirables in our direction?

    It will only take one anglophobic official to put 2 & 2 together and realise that since France controls both ends of the UK/French border, they can offload a large number of undesirables onto us before we have a chance to say "Non". Then we have a bunch of illegal immigrants to deal with.
  • The French can at least be relied on not to use illegal immigrants to decide who enters and who doesn't
  • cooperative5
    Sounds very sensible as long as we can bear to be tough at this end and protect our borders at our borders.
  • gunboatdiplomat
    Why does Juvenals question 'Quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' spring to mind?
  • An interesting concept. A kind of 'Outsourced Racism'.

    We can trust the French to be Xenophobic (1. In France there are 2 ways of doing things; the French way, and the wrong way. 2. Current treatment of Roma people exemplifies long standing attitudes to immigrants - would be or existing. 3. I could go on..).

    By letting the French 'reject the aliens', the UK has effectively outsourced the problem (a bit like the banks outsourcing their debt), and therefore don't have to take any responsibility for unpalatable decisions, or bear the flak.

    Nuffink to do wiv me, mate.
  • olympic
    The good news is there will be no more Angolan nationals being deported made to become 'unwell' and murdered by UKBA private security contractors - I'm all for France controlling the UK border - I'm sure they will do a far better job at not killing people and respecting their human rights since the UK govt seems unable to do so.
  • olympic
    Well considering the US manages the UK's foreign policy - what's new?
  • olympic
    Can someone please tell the independent that there are no Eurostar services departing from Waterloo and there haven't been for many years.
  • crashtestmonkey
    Of course not. They will just put them on the first train to Kings Cross while they load the Romanies caravans in the back. Why would the French care?
  • marph45
    a very spooky idea, how can you tell another country to manage your border?
  • VicTheBrit
    Do the French immigration authorities kill people in their care? Do they lock up children while their parent's application for permission to stay klunks through the system? Do they hire private contractors to do their dirty work? No? Then I'm in favour of the change.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date

Sponsored Links