UK Borders Bill

I suspect that this will be the last group of amendments we discuss this evening. I express my gratitude to Members of the Committee who have taken part and to the officials who have kept me well supplied with additional information and further points of elucidation. It has been a long and testing session. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment, which in customary style she flagged up earlier when we discussed complaints processes. She usefully prefigured it in those comments. In essence, it would allow the chief inspector to set out to investigate any type of individual cases. When I prepared for this debate, I told officials that I thought I recognised this amendment. I realised that I did, but because I have done so many Home Office and other Bills I have completely forgotten when it was tabled. However, I know that I have made similar points to those I shall make this evening. We believe that the amendment would potentially overload the chief inspector with casework—I agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in that regard—and therefore reduce his effectiveness in assessing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the agency. There are sufficient existing remedies for individuals seeking redress, for example through an appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Complaints about individual cases are handled within the organisation. Those who remain dissatisfied can seek recourse through their Member of Parliament or the Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I hope that it will reassure the noble Baroness if I emphasise that, under the Bill, the chief inspector will be able to consider and draw conclusions from individual cases for the purpose of, or in the context of, considering a general issue. For example, where a case adds to the consideration of systemic failures, it will be useful to look at a particular case or cases if they throw up wider issues. But, as a matter of course, the chief inspector will not set out to investigate individual cases beyond that. Amendment No. 68 would mean that material could be omitted from the published version of the chief inspector’s report only if both the Secretary of State and the Information Commissioner believed that the publication of the material would be undesirable for reasons of national security or because it might jeopardise the safety of an individual. The approach that we have taken reflects existing provision in respect of reports from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. I do not believe that the amendment is the right way to proceed. Reports from the chief inspector will be laid by the Secretary of State before Parliament; taking account of any omissions that the Secretary of State believes are necessary. It is open to an individual to make a request to the Secretary of State for disclosure of other information, and the Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to respond either by providing the information requested or by citing the reasons for not disclosing it. If an individual remains dissatisfied, the proper course is to apply to the Information Commissioner for consideration of the issue. I do not see what would be gained by requiring the Information Commissioner to consider this in advance of the Secretary of State’s decision on whether the publication of any material is undesirable for reasons of national security or because it might jeopardise an individual’s safety. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the continued role of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. It is our intention to continue to look at the detention estate. We do not want to lose that expertise, and a number of noble Lords have drawn attention to the detail of the inspector’s reports in Yarl’s Wood, Dungavel, and so on. We want to continue with that expertise. Of course the Prisons and Probations Ombudsman will look at individual cases. The Complaints Audit Committee annual report 2005-06 referred to the number of complaints that are made annually about immigration cases, and I think that for that year there were upwards of 26,000 complaints. It appears as a sample that some 90 per cent of complaints arose from delays in decision-making, which is why the Government have properly invested in trying to ensure that we hit our target times and improve the speed of processing cases. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his letter today regarding a bogus immigration adviser. I entirely understand what he said in his letter; it has been useful because I have now been able to raise this issue with the officials concerned. I am not in a position to comment on the specific case—it would be wrong if I did—but I offer the noble Lord the assurance that I give to the Committee that this matter is receiving attention, and we take such matters very seriously. I remember moving an amendment in 1999 which strengthened the provisions with regard to bogus immigration advisers who, as described by the noble Lord, try to profit from other people’s positions, and sometimes their considerable misery. We are well aware of these issues, and have been for some time. We are grateful when our attention is drawn to particular cases. Having said that, and having understood the nature of the noble Baroness’s argument, I cannot accept the amendment. Both amendments are unacceptable to the Government.