Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I hesitate to suggest that one would never see those words because there may be circumstances where they are appropriate. Equally, parliamentary counsel approach Bills in slightly different ways. That is their prerogative. They each have individual styles. I sometimes wonder whether we could guess who drafted which Bill from the style inherent in it. So I would hesitate to say that. If we are able to use simple language in legislation, for my own part I think that that is a good thing and not a bad thing. The underlying question for the Constitution Committee is whether in so doing we lose something in terms of clarity of definition. That is not for me to say; it is for the Constitution Committee and for the lawyers to debate. I hope that the committee might have a conversation with parliamentary counsel about this. An appropriate debate to have might be why particular words are chosen. But I think that everybody, including all the members of the Constitutional Committee, would agree with the general principle of choosing a simple expression to explain what we are trying to do. I look forward to perhaps hearing more from the committee about how far it gets with that debate. In a lot of the work we do across public services, it is important to consider the best use of the people we have got. Having been an education Minister, having dealt with children’s issues, having worked in the health service and so on, I am very mindful of using professionals appropriately. But where tasks can appropriately be undertaken by others, we should enable that to happen. It is a better use of resources. It enables the highly-trained professionals to concentrate on what they do best. To respond to my noble friend Lady Turner, I do not think that this provision suggests in any way that there is not a big and possibly increasing role for the professions. It is not meant in any way, shape or form to undermine the professionalism of the Immigration Service or those professionals working in it. It is meant to enhance their ability to do their work by bringing in those who can help in what are often, frankly, simple and mundane operations. So that is the basis upon which we start. My noble friend asked me specifically whether there would be an extension of contractors into freight lines. I understand that the answer to that is ““yes””; it is the basic contention of this clause. Since August 2005, the Immigration Service has been working with private contractors in the freight lanes at berth side in Calais with huge success. There are no immediate plans to use private contractors at the main control on the freight lanes where the work involves not only basic physical searches but also screening, debriefing and the application of civil penalty. Those particular skills would require warranted immigration officers. I immediately make the differentiation between the clear, mundane, straightforward things that can take place and situations where skills such as those of immigration officers are important and need to be utilised properly. As I say, that is an effective use of resources. The second factor, apart from using resources effectively, is to make sure that we have the flexibility to be able to outsource where that is appropriate. I want to talk about the way in which we will do that. Contractors will be individually authorised by the Secretary of State. That authorisation will take place only where they are properly trained and are suitable for the purpose that we wish them to undertake. We will take this very seriously. Security checks will be undertaken, and training will include cultural awareness, race relations, the legal framework, interpersonal skills and care for vulnerable detainees. In addition, the powers granted by the Bill to private contractors are limited to the minimum that they require to carry out their task. I shall discuss children specifically and separately, in case the noble Earl thinks that I have forgotten them. But, of course, in talking about vulnerable people, I am including children in that generic term. Authorisation can be revoked if standards are not met. Private contractors will work under the Immigration Service, which will be present at the ports where they operate. As the Committee has recognised, there is an independent monitor. While the work in France is carried out in France, the independent monitor will report back directly to the Secretary of State on those questions. He will monitor the exercise of the powers, inspect the exercise of the powers, investigate and report to the Secretary of State any allegation made in respect of an authorised private contractor. Private contractors will be supervised by the Immigration Service and authorised individually. Checks will be made and training must be given. As I have indicated, the training will include a range of issues that I think the Committee will consider important. All that will enable the Immigration Service to do the job that its professionals do best and to use people appropriately. The Committee will agree that there are lots of examples of where individuals who happen to work for private contractors—after all, they are ordinary people trying to do a good job—do so with great effect. Members of the Committee were concerned about the three hour issue. I have never been a Home Office Minister, and am never likely to be one either, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, more than hinted. I cannot answer the point about the difference between the half hour and the three hour periods, but I will find the answer for the noble Lord. However, it is anticipated that there will rarely need to be anything like that period of time. It is anticipated that people will be detained for minutes only, but we need to give people the power to implement the provision. I presume that we have permitted a longer time scale to ensure that there is enough time to do that properly and effectively. That is important. However, I do not know why there are different time scales; I suspect that it may concern the simple movement of people.