UK Borders Bill

I am, as ever, grateful to Members of the Committee who raised these important issues. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Judd, for leading off on their amendments in a spirit of co-operation, giving fair consideration to the points and the issues. There are already some situations where immigration officers are subject to PACE codes of practice, but in other cases they are not. As many noble Lords know, PACE codes are specific to those with a duty to investigate offences and, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, noted, that is a key dividing line. In considering whether PACE codes of practice are relevant to the powers in Clauses 1 to 4, we need to look at the functions that a designated immigration officer will exercise. It is also worth considering how those functions relate to existing powers. The power to detain in the Bill is specifically intended to support the police at the border by detaining individuals of interest pending the arrival of a police constable: that is its primary purpose. It will be for the constable to decide whether the person should be arrested. The key point is that designated officers will simply be acting in support of the police, not on behalf of the police. This is an important distinction when comparing these powers to the role of a community support officer who acts on behalf of the police and is consequently subject to PACE codes. That is a clear distinction. Immigration officers exercising the power will not carry out any of the major substantive functions of a police constable, such as questioning, arrest, investigation or specific evidence collection. They may search the individual only for anything that might be used to assist escape or cause physical injury; in other words, it will be a defensive search. They can retain and give to a constable any such item as well as any item they believe to be evidence of the commission of an offence, but the substantive police constable functions will remain fully under the control of the police. The designated immigration officer will be under a duty to arrange for a constable to attend as soon as reasonably practical. We expect that, in practice, the period of detention in most cases will be short. In any event, it is subject to a maximum period of three hours. The detention-related activities carried out by a designated immigration officer do not constitute part of the investigative procedure conducted by a police officer. Detention carried out by immigration officers under immigration powers is not subject to PACE codes of practice. We do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate for detention under these provisions to be subject to those codes. The Bill already contains significant legislative safeguards. Immigration officers may be designated only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are fit and proper persons for the purpose and have been suitably trained. The Bill also states that a designation may be revoked at any time. It is intended that, where an officer fails at any time to meet the criteria for designation, then the designation will be revoked. In collaboration with the police, specific criteria for the designation of immigration officers are being developed. The Border and Immigration Agency is also developing, in collaboration with the police, comprehensive standard operating procedures that designated officers will be bound by. We have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses those draft designation principles and the draft standard operating procedures. Members of the Committee will have the benefit of being able to view those and make their views known. They are high level and signal our intentions in this area. We intend to continue our process of consultation with the police—