UK Borders Bill

My noble friend Lady Carnegy and I have given notice that we wish to oppose the Question whether Clause 59 shall stand part of the Bill because of the effect that it is designed to create. The Government have still not provided a full and sufficient explanation about how securely the devolved arrangement in the clause will deliver the full level of control they wish from this legislation. I question one aspect of the noble Lord’s response in our first day in Committee. At col. GC 58 he suggested that we should bring in a regulation such as this and that it might require a review in six months’ time. Is that really an adequate way forward? My noble friend Lady Anelay drew attention in the debate on Clause 1 to the similarities of the powers in the Bill to those under Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. That was a police Bill subsequent to devolution and the measure did not apply to Scotland. Today we are not dealing with a police Bill but with an immigration service Bill, so the question before the Government has to be: what areas of this matter are dependent on the devolved administration? Is the Government’s concern that if these new powers are given to immigration officers in Scotland, there will be a clash of authority, as they will duplicate those of the Scottish police? Will they do so? Surely, the fact that the powers will be exercisable only for three hours—a point that my noble friend Lady Carnegy earlier drew to the attention of the Committee—must mean that any problem would not be too difficult to overcome. At col. GC 47, on the first day in Committee, the Minister takes some comfort in the fact that there are only seven international ports in Scotland. He states that for England and Wales he expects these powers to be of particular use when an immigration officer has to work without the presence of a policeman. Because of the type of arrangement presently envisaged in the Bill, in Scotland, with its sparse population and vast coastline, it must be a concern to us all that an immigration officer must always expect to have a policeman with the relevant powers standing at his elbow or only be able to act in his full official role when there is a policeman standing nearby. Any such requirement could constitute a vast waste of resources, apart from anything else. How can the Government be sure that there will be no occasions in Scotland when an immigration officer will wish to act and there are no policemen present? Devolution has a very strange meaning if the Scottish police are unable to offer assistance to United Kingdom government officials acting on non-devolved matters without enabling legislation in the Scottish Parliament. The whole gamut of asylum, immigration and the capacity of persons in the United Kingdom who are not British citizens is a reserved matter under Section B6 of Schedule 5. How can the Government exercise these powers in Scotland if they do not have the total co-operation of the police? Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the problem is seen as being similar to that posed by rail transport security, a matter raised when the Scotland Act was under scrutiny in your Lordships’ House? It was then recognised that the rail transport security body would have to operate on both sides of the Border and that rail transport security had to be listed as a reserved matter. Surely it would seem a little excessive for the legislation to require an amendment to the Scotland Act for Westminster to allocate powers to the Immigration Service north of the border. I note with interest how on several occasions, especially at column GC 45, the Minister stressed the importance of inter-operability among the several agencies at border control centres; that they should work together well and understand each other's different roles; and that there should be some common core of training at the heart of it all. Does the exception of Scotland from the new powers mean that immigration officers in Scotland will have to be separately trained and always remain Scottish immigration officers, or will that element have to form a part of all officers’ training? Do any additional costs arise from that difference? The final point that makes me question the purpose of Clause 59(1) is whether the arrangements can be held to be fully compatible with the Act of Union. I should like to hear the Government's views on that. That is no minor consideration, as I understand that the Bill cannot become law if it is held in any way to be incompatible with that Act and the treaty that preceded it. A major concern of the Act of Union is orders and the allowances and encouragements available in that connection. As the noble Lord will be aware, Article IV states: "““All subjects of the United Kingdom ... shall ... from and after the Union, have full freedom and intercourse of trade and navigation, to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom ... and that there be a communication of all other rights, privileges, and advantages which do or may belong to the subjects of either kingdom, except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these articles””." Perhaps facetiously, I ask: does that not apply to immigration officers? That leads one to believe that that amounts to a full equality provision, in particular with regard to the borders of the United Kingdom, and that regulations at the borders should be the same wherever they occur in the United Kingdom. Article VI treats with all parts of the United Kingdom having the same ““allowances, encouragements and drawbacks””. That may not be seen to be relevant to immigration as they are most likely to be taken as regarding duties and tariffs, but it might be a consideration nonetheless. Our task here is to look into the possible ramifications of the legislation. These areas need due consideration and the Government need to think hard about their proposal that Scotland should be excepted from Clauses 1 to 4 under Clause 59(1). Will the Minister consider returning to this when we gather at Report?