UK Borders Bill

I repeat my thanks to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, took me to task about the drafting of my amendment, and he did so quite rightly. One advantage of Grand Committee—there are few, but this is one—is that one may table probing amendments such as this as part of a consultation process. Unfortunately, one of the great disadvantages is that that also makes one rather sloppy in tabling amendments, because they do not have to be perfect as one knows that one cannot divide upon them. If one tried to do so, the whole of Grand Committee would be suspended and we would have to move into the Chamber to continue. I have never seen anybody brave enough to do that yet, and I am not starting that trend—yet. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to two points. First, in subsection (2), on the order in which the items fall, I agree with him entirely. If I were to put the items in order of preference, subsection (2)(a), "““detecting and removing illegal overstayers””," would not have been at the top of my list. However, as with all lists drafted in this way, this is not put in order of preference. That is my only defence of myself with regard to this. I certainly think that if one presented this as a government policy, one would have to consider very carefully where one’s priorities lay. The noble Lord also referred to the drafting of subsections (3) and (5) and pointed out correctly that the British Transport Police have been omitted. I could do a weasel defence and say that they would be covered in subsection (5)(f), but I take his point exactly. He is right in saying that they are important, and have been so especially, as one has seen, in terrorism attempts in the past few years. If I brought this amendment back, I would ensure that the British Transport Police formed part of that drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, began as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out by saying that the Government had an open mind, but their mind seemed to get more closed as his response progressed. He said that three agencies should remain and gave his reasons for so believing. He said, too, that a single force was not what the United Kingdom needed, which looked as if it closed the door. I hope that consideration will remain as to the best way in which to develop our security. I noted with interest the appointment of Sir Alan West as Home Office Minister to serve in this House. He has a long and distinguished career in security matters. We will wait to see what influence he may have on Home Office policy-making, but we hope that it will be as constructive as his previous career would lead us to believe it should be. But it is, of course, always a case of whether the Home Office will listen—that is the problem. I conclude by reiterating that this was part of our consultation process. We recognise fully that there is a joint determination by all parties and groups, including the Cross-Benchers in this House, to secure our borders. It is a question not only of the right way to do it but of what is the most efficient way to do it. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said on that, and he is right. It is a case of trying to ensure that one delivers an efficient and co-ordinated response. How one does that, we will continue to consider.