I support the amendment. Clause 1 states that a person may be a designated immigration officer only if he is fit and proper for the purpose and suitably trained. The question is: what does that mean? My noble friend’s amendment is an attempt to help the Government to define it. It is as simple as that.
As we are on Clause 1, perhaps I may ask the Minister a general question. The Bill is about the United Kingdom’s borders, and it is strange that Clauses 1 to 4 do not apply to Scotland. I understand that the reason is that, when drafting the Bill, the Government consulted the previous Scottish Executive, which was a Liberal/Labour coalition, about whether they would allow the Bill to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. They had to ask because policing is a delegated function and the Bill is closely integrated with the police. That Scottish Executive said that they wanted to legislate separately. That was a slightly strange decision because one of the borders is, in any case, a joint border—the one between Scotland and England—and people can come into England and Wales via Scotland, as they have been doing. It was a slightly strange decision, but they said that they did not want that part of the Bill to apply to Scotland.
Since then, there has been an election in Scotland and there is a new Scottish Executive—a minority Scottish National Party Administration. Have the Government consulted that Administration since the elections about whether they continue to want to legislate separately? I ask that because it seemed rather a strange decision by the previous Administration. Even if they have, I wonder whether it would be wise to speak to them again. As I said on the previous amendment, opinion in Scotland seems to have been rather shaken on this whole subject, and the wisdom of a common system under Clauses 1 to 4 might appeal to them more now than it did before. It would be interesting if the Minister could tell us where we are on that and, regardless of where we are, the Government might even try again if they need to. This is quite important.
I do not think that this part of the Bill will be effective if it does not apply to Scotland. I see the problems because of the interaction with the local police, but I should have thought that they could be overcome. All the Scots Parliament needs to do is to pass a Sewel motion, which would allow the Government to amend the Bill so that the whole of it could apply to Scotland.
UK Borders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Carnegy of Lour
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 2 July 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on UK Borders Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c44GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:44:32 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_407228
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_407228
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_407228