UK Borders Bill

Before the noble Lord, Lord Judd, seeks to withdraw his amendment, perhaps I may first thank the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with my Amendment No. 65, and particularly for his offer to write to me on the assistance given to those who give evidence and how the Government seek to develop that in the future. That will be most useful. The Minister directed me on Amendment No. 65, as I rather expected he should, by saying, ““Don’t worry—it’s all covered by Clause 47(2)””. Indeed, the general remit is given to the chief inspector. However, I was grateful for the way in which the Minister replied to the amendment. It is important to have on the record the fact that the Government see part of that remit as specifically the need to cover the way in which the BIA reacts to claims of trafficking and how those are processed. There remains a difficulty that I shall return to when we reach Amendment No. 67—that the Minister correctly said that the cases have to be viewed on a case-by-case basis. Under Clause 47, however, the chief inspector is not allowed to look at individual cases; he is looking at the general approach. I shall keep my powder dry for Amendment No. 67, because the issue goes rather wider than just this amendment.