UK Borders Bill

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2: 2: Before Clause 1, leave out lines 5 to 10 and insert— ““(a) protecting UK borders; (b) strengthening frontier protection against threats to the security, social and economic integrity and environment of the United Kingdom; (c) preventing and detecting human trafficking; (d) maintaining and improving a safe, ordered and secure environment in ports; and (e) such other functions as the Secretary of State may by order determine.”” The noble Lord said: We certainly agree with the principle of the noble Baroness’s amendment, that a unified border force should be created. It is Liberal Democrat party policy to do that, because we would like to see united the present border control functions of HM Revenue and Customs, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, which has become the Border and Immigration Agency, and the police, who cover various functions at ports and airports. We would integrate all those agencies into a stronger and more co-ordinated national border force. We accept that major crime is no longer, even essentially, a local issue, and that the modern criminal is likely to be linked, either directly or indirectly, to international networks, and that the UK’s border control arrangements are currently under disparate control structures such as I have mentioned—the police, the customs and the Immigration Service—and are not as well co-ordinated as they might be. However, there are some differences between our proposals and those which were laid before Members of the Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. We want to see a proper integrated presence at the borders and the airports. That is what the focus of a border force should be to secure the United Kingdom’s borders. A Liberal Democrat border force would strengthen our borders against terrorism, drug-smuggling and organised immigration crime, and it might even include a maritime interdiction capability to work alongside Royal Navy patrols and perhaps include also the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. It would also take on the responsibilities for incoming goods, which are currently exercised by trading standards. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned the reports of the House of Commons Select Committee that dealt with the creation of a co-ordinated national border force, particularly the report of January 2001, which highlighted the problems that arise from having this variety of agencies carry out controls at the borders and the ports. The committee reported: "““The different agencies operate in slightly different ways, depending on the trained skills of staff, objectives and priorities, equipment, facilities and legal basis. This produces results such as: passengers and vehicles having to pass through two or more separate controls at ports; different agencies operate independent databases with varying degrees of national networking—Immigration Service and Special Branch do not have direct access to Customs’ OASIS system, including the Ferry Information System; separate budgets for advanced technology are too small for major projects; intelligence is not as widely shared as it ought to be; some officers on duty at the point of delivery do not have full powers to carry out necessary border control functions on behalf of others; cross-posting or ""secondment, sharing of facilities and joint training do not appear to be as extensive as they might be; at some ports only one of the border agencies is regularly present””." That is a pretty stark indictment of the present arrangements, which a single frontier force would do much to counter. It would provide a more co-ordinated fight against organised crime, a larger pooled budget for development, acquisition and use of advanced technology, closer integration of the computer databases that they each have to use, and communication systems and increased flexibility in deploying resources. I recognise that some of the benefits that you would expect to see from a UK border force can be achieved by the Government’s border management programme, about which perhaps the Minister will have more to say in reply to this debate. It brings together the border control agencies to discuss joint ways in which to work. The example that was given by a Minister in another place is that at Gatwick, immigration officers are now acting as the primary interventions agency on behalf of other agents. Customs and police officers are providing the BIA with specific information about people and immigration officers, who see every person going through Gatwick airport, are identifying people who may be of interest to Customs and passing those persons across to it. In freight search operations, the BIA and Customs both have teams, and existing legislation allows officers to act as immigration officers in specified circumstances. That is particularly the case when they find people hidden in vehicles that they are searching for contraband. These are all good steps towards more integrated working but, surely, if the BIA, Customs and police were operating under unified management, there would be economies at the management level and at the coal face where the officers are working because of the greater interoperability of staff engaged at present on three different but closely related groups of tasks. The UK border force would act under legislation which, I accept, would need to be drafted—we have not done that in the amendments that we are considering this afternoon. If the Government were disposed to accept either of the solutions offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, or ourselves, a considerable amount of extra work would be needed to put flesh on the bones. The legislation would confer on the UK border force all the powers that are at present exercised by the police, Customs and immigration officers in protecting our borders. The legislation would give them the flexibility and cohesiveness that co-operation between three different agencies with overlapping functions could never wholly achieve. The Government estimate that it would cost £104 million to provide 24-hour cover at all ports of entry to the UK, which may or may not be operationally necessary. A more comprehensive service would be possible without any additional cost through the improved use of resources that would follow the unification of the three existing agencies into a border force. I hope that if the Government are not convinced by our arguments, they will at least say that independent management advice will be taken on both solutions proposed this afternoon. I beg to move.