UK Borders Bill

This has been a very useful and wide-ranging debate. It has raised some questions that I shall endeavour to answer this afternoon and, if I cannot, of course I shall answer them at a later date. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for opening up the interesting discussion on training. As the services work ever closer together at border control centres, because of the issue of interoperability referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, it is extremely important that they work together well and understand each others’ different roles and that there is some common core training at the heart of it all, so that many of the interrelated issues are understood. Before I deal with training, I shall set out the Government’s justification for seeking powers generally in Clauses 1 to 4. As we noted in the debate on the first group of amendments, the key priority for the Government is to develop closer working between the border agencies. Project Semaphore, the test-bed for the full e-borders system, is now receiving data from 56 carriers operating to and from 99 non-UK airports and seaports. To date, over 10,730 multi-agency alerts have been issued with over 950 arrests being made. That part of the exercise is working well. Those figures show that at ports where a police officer is not in attendance, there is a role for designated immigration officers. They can help the police by acting in support of the police until such time as a constable can attend and assume responsibility for an individual. As I said at the outset, it is very important that each understands the distinct roles, that there is training common to all and that a common understanding is developed as part of that. The Government, of course, agree that immigration officers exercising any powers should receive the appropriate training and have the necessary qualifications. I shall explain why the Government consider Amendment No. 3 unnecessary and I hope to provide the noble Baroness and others with assurance on that. The Bill already sets out sufficient safeguards in that officers may be designated only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are fit and proper for the purpose and have been suitably trained. The Bill also provides for designation to be revoked at any time. New training will be based around existing good practice and will be likely to mirror closely the existing training for immigration officers who exercise powers of arrest. In collaboration with police colleagues, we are developing specific criteria for the designation of immigration officers. The Border and Immigration Agency already has experience of implementing similar certification arrangements for other groups. For example, procedures are in place for the authorisation of detainee custody officers and for search officers, which require the Secretary of State to be similarly satisfied that a person is fit and proper to carry out his duties. We are using these procedures as a blueprint for this regime. It is vital that we retain the flexibility to amend these policies and guidelines quickly and efficiently as the business demands. If we were to go along the route of regulations, that would require that any amendments to those policies and guidelines would need to come before Parliament on each and every occasion, even when only small changes were to be made. I would argue, not least for some of the reasons given by noble Lords this afternoon, that that would be unwise, inflexible and not fit for the purpose. We are content to make the more detailed designation criteria and the details of the training schedule available as and when they are developed. I do not consider the amendment to be necessary, because it would create a disproportionate regulatory burden where alternative mechanisms can be put in place. A number of questions arose from the contributions. I shall work through them in no particular order, starting with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Immigration officers already have powers of arrest, together with search and seizure powers. They are enabled to use reasonable force to carry out their duties, which must relate to immigration practices. As I have argued already, training will be consistent with police training and in keeping with current training for arrest-trained officers. Training is delivered by police specialists, and we will make public the training standards. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was rightly concerned about accountability. The accountability of immigration officers will be via their senior officer command structure and, ultimately, to the chief executive of the Border and Immigration Agency. We are consulting on the extent of oversight at the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but it is likely that officers exercising powers under these provisions will be subject to the IPCC in terms of serious complaints. I suspect that we are moving in the direction that the noble Lord anticipates; I know that we will be debating amendments on this issue later. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke about safeguards for children and childcare issues. We understand that and will be debating those issues later. The detention of children under Clauses 1 to 4 would occur only in the most exceptional and rare cases, and that is right. When we develop the procedures that I have talked about, we will continue to work with the police to determine when it might be appropriate to detain a child under these provisions. It is fair to reflect that safeguards are already in place at ports in relation to immigration officers’ existing powers of detention, including the fact that staff are specially trained to deal with minors at ports of entry. Comprehensive children’s guidance is issued to all operational staff, and that will continue to be the case. These safeguards will be extended to cover children detained under these provisions. We accept that the work has to be of a continuing nature and we must seek to attain the highest possible standards. Immigration officers work closely with child protection experts. Operation Paladin at Heathrow provides a useful example of where a multi-agency approach in general to safeguard children is adopted, involving the social services departments, the police from the relevant authority adjacent to the port of entry, airport, and so on. This is best practice in the field, and we are continuing to develop it as we learn and understand more. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, rightly raised the Scottish aspect. As ever, she demonstrated how on the ball she was with developments north of the Border. We have had discussions with the Scottish Executive, who concluded that the routine presence of police officers at all seven international ports in Scotland meant that it was unnecessary to provide immigration officers with devolved powers. They have also reflected that it is their right to make that decision and, as the noble Baroness observed, they can choose to legislate if they wish. That is their right. We are satisfied that that does not compromise border security, given the level of international traffic. We are committed to working closely with ACPO Scotland to ensure that this is effective. We have had discussions with the Scottish Executive since the outcome of the Scottish elections was clear, and they continue to hold to the position. We will continue dialogue with them, and recent events mean that that dialogue must be of a more intense nature. However, we are content with the current situation. The noble Baroness also asked about fit and proper persons. We are developing a fit and proper persons test. It will include appropriate security clearance, a Criminal Records Bureau check and the successful completion of a probationary period of at least a year. There will be a proper selection process, and candidates will have to succeed on a pass/fail training course. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, raised the issue of customer service training. The noble Lord is right to make the point that immigration staff can be the first point of contact when people come to this country, perhaps sometimes in a slightly confused state and not understanding the language or being unable to communicate as effectively as they would wish. That is an experience that we all suffer or enjoy at various times when we go about the world. The customer services training qualification will be similar to that developed in the criminal justice system under the ““narrowing the justice gap”” policy. Staff are trained to deal with people appropriately and sensitively. That is a key skill for all persons engaged in the criminal justice system, and it is very important here. We will need to revisit the issue and ensure that staff have access—