UK Borders Bill

Obviously I have no option but to withdraw my objection to the clause, because that is how the procedure works in Grand Committee. I cannot say that I am satisfied with the Minister’s reply. No one is arguing about whether there should be charges made against someone who assaults a front-line officer, whether that be an immigration officer, a customs officer or a member of the police force. Nor are we arguing about the penalties, because the existing penalty for each of those offences is six months, and when Section 281 comes into force, that will be changed to 51 weeks, as we have discussed. There is no question but that where people commit criminal offences against front-line workers, they should be charged, they should be brought before the courts and they should be given the same penalty, whichever service the assaulted person belongs to. We are arguing about whether there needs to be a separate charge relating to immigration officers in the Bill or whether the existing procedures work perfectly satisfactorily, and particularly whether they will work satisfactorily once the immigration officers have the power to detain, which they will have under the Bill. The noble Lord cannot even tell me whether there is any problem with people absconding at the moment in cases where someone commits an assault on an immigration officer and, because he does not at present have the power to detain, by the time a police officer is called to attend the scene the offender has already vanished into the crowds. We have no breakdown whatever of the 28 cases that the noble Lord gave in his letter, whether they are assaults against a person in the front line, as he puts it, or against personnel working in immigration removal centres or some other part of the BIA. The noble Lord did not even bother to address the question that I put to him of why there should be a particular offence relating to immigration officers and not to the rest of the BIA’s 17,200 staff, some of whom may be equally vulnerable. I am wholly dissatisfied with the Minister’s reply but, as I said, I have no option but to accept the position. I will not pursue my objection at this stage. Clause 21 agreed to. Clause 22 agreed to. Clause 23 [Seizure of cash]: [Amendment No. 49 not moved.] Clause 23 agreed to. Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to. Clause 26 [Employment: arrest]: [Amendment No. 50 not moved.] Clause 26 agreed to. Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to. Clause 30 [People trafficking]: