UK Borders Bill

moved Amendment No. 67: 67: Clause 47, page 26, line 30, leave out subsection (4) and insert— ““(4) The Chief Inspector shall have the power to investigate individual cases.”” The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 68. Looking at the clock, I am aware that we have to finish by 7.30 pm at the latest and that the Government have found a little extra time for deliberation on this Bill on Wednesday at 3.45 pm. I shall begin my amendment, but I may be interrupted before we finish it. Amendment No. 67 would give the chief inspector of the Border and Immigration Agency the power to investigate individual cases. We are concerned that without this amendment, the chief inspector will be unable to provide the effective oversight and accountability that will be needed to ensure that the new and extended powers of immigration officers are not abused or misused. We note that Clause 47(4) prevents the chief inspector investigating individual cases, and we do not see the rationale for that. Indeed, earlier, I thought that some of the arguments being adduced with regard to trafficking and the importance of looking at cases on a case-by-case basis were in our favour in ensuring that the chief inspector is also able to look at individual cases. We believe that our amendment would not be unduly burdensome for the chief inspector. He is given the power to investigate individual cases. We are not saying that he must investigate each and every case. We are giving him the power to select. I presume he could carry out some of the data-matching and data-mining exercises, of which the Government are so fond, to flag up where individual cases merited his further investigation. Such a use of the chief inspector would enhance public confidence in the ability of the inspectorate to monitor and report on the work of the BIA. Public confidence in the old Immigration and Nationality Directorate—if indeed there was any by the end of last year—was shattered when the Home Secretary nominated it as ““not fit for purpose””. The public will need some persuading that the rebranded agency will be better. We also have reservations about the reporting mechanism in the Bill. The chief inspector is to report to the Secretary of State under the provisions of Clause 49, and the Secretary of State will lay that report before Parliament. The problem is that the Secretary of State has the power in Clause 49 to remove parts of the report if he thinks that the information could compromise national security or might put an individual’s safety in jeopardy. Both of those are perfectly acceptable reasons, but it is surely important to have an independent referee to ensure that the Secretary of State has acted properly in what is, after all, his censorship of the report. Our amendment would achieve that independent scrutiny by requiring the chief inspector to send his report not only to the Secretary of State but also to the Information Commissioner. I beg to move.