UK Borders Bill

moved Amendment No. 7: 7: Clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out ““51 weeks”” and insert ““six months”” The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 7 to 12 reduce the maximum term of imprisonment provided for the offences under Clause 3 from 51 weeks to six months. Amendments Nos. 45 to 48 do the same in relation to offences under Clause 21. Clause 3(1) sets out the offences of absconding from detention under Clause 2, assaulting an immigration officer exercising a power under Clause 2 and obstructing an immigration officer in the exercise of a power under Clause 2. Clause 21 creates a new offence of assaulting an immigration officer. The Bill therefore treats immigration officers in a manner similar to police and customs officers in that they are all the subject of specific provision, in addition to the existing criminal law on assault. The Minister will no doubt explain why this is necessary when, under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, there is already an offence of common assault covering exactly the same conduct. We recognise that immigration officers, in common with the police and customs officers, undertake difficult duties which can place them in physical danger but, as long as the penalties under the general law are adequate, we are not sure that there is any point in having a proliferation of special offences apply to different groups of workers all attracting the same penalty as the general law. It would be useful if the Minister could explain the thinking behind this clause, which is similar to Section 32 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, although not to the provision regarding assault on a constable in the execution of his or her duty contrary to Section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996, where the penalty is six months. If we are to have a UK borders force, as we were arguing a little while ago, the three groups of workers would be merged into one. Therefore, if there is a need for the special offence of assault, it would apply to all of them and the penalty would be identical for the offence of assaulting any one of them, as it should be. Section 281 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows for the penalty for summary offences to be increased from six months to 51 weeks by order. There is then a whole range of specific offences for which the existing penalties, ranging from one to three months, were replaced by 51 weeks in Schedule 26 to the 2003 Act. In response to an inquiry that I made through the Library a couple of weeks ago, the Ministry of Justice said that it had no plans to bring this section into force. It would have been helpful if the Explanatory Notes had made it clear that, as I assume must be the case, it is planned that all the summary offences in this Bill that are punishable by up to 51 weeks will come into force on the same day as Section 281. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is so. The Magistrates’ Association tells me that Section 281 was drawn up in preparation for the introduction of custody plus under the 2003 Act, which followed the 2002 White Paper, Justice for All, and that in all criminal legislation since then, summary offences attract a maximum of 51 weeks, of which the custodial period would be up to 13 weeks and the licence period at least six months. However, as I understand it, custody plus is in cold storage and cannot possibly be implemented safely until the Probation Service has been given a breathing space following the upheavals brought about by the Offender Management Bill, and I should have thought that the provisions of that Bill would take several years to implement satisfactorily. Is it sensible to go on drafting clauses that are not likely to come into effect for such a long time, and is it the intention that immigration officers should have the powers in Clause 2 without any immediate prospect of the enforcement provisions in Clause 3? For the time being, with all the offences in this Bill for which the penalty is 51 weeks remaining in abeyance, it would be useful if the Minister could tell the Committee whether a person who assaults an immigration officer exercising the Clause 2 powers would be charged with common assault. Can he also give the Committee details of how many offenders have been brought before the courts on charges of common assault on an immigration officer in, say, each of the past five years, so that we can see how prevalent this offence is and whether there is any trend? As the Committee is no doubt aware, the penalty for common assault, or for assaulting a police officer, remains at six months. Whatever else we do in this Bill, my party is committed to ensuring that there is consistency in how front-line public service workers are treated before the law. I beg to move.