UK Borders Bill

I respect what the noble Baroness says. I am trying to set out the whole picture. The issue of people-trafficking has been raised. Clause 30(1) and (2), which amend the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, relate to matters devolved to Scotland. That is because Section 4 of the 2004 Act, in so far as it created a new criminal offence of trafficking people for non-sexual exploitation, extends beyond immigration purposes and relates to the prevention of more general criminal offences which are devolved matters in respect of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament, via a Sewel Motion and Memorandum in 2004, endorsed the principle of creating this new offence to combat trafficking in human beings and agreed to the consideration of these provisions by the UK Parliament. Any amendment to Section 4 would require a further Legislative Consent Motion and Memorandum, as we now describe it. It was not possible prior to the introduction of the Bill, owing to the then imminent dissolution of the Scottish Parliament, to obtain a further Legislative Consent Motion and Memorandum. Therefore, the provisions of Clause 30(1) and (2) do not extend to Scotland, but, I return to the point, noble Lords should be assured that the Government and the Scottish Executive are united in their condemnation of individuals who seek to benefit from the exploitation of vulnerable persons through manipulative, coercive and violent means. The Scottish Executive and the Home Office worked together closely on the development of the UK Action Plan on Tackling Human Trafficking, which was published in March. The Scottish Executive is currently considering whether amendments should be made to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 offence as it applies in Scots law, and to similar offences such as Section 22 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 and Sections 9 to 12 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005. I reassure noble Lords that it will continue to be an offence under the law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to facilitate the arrival or entry of an individual into Scotland, as part of the UK, for the purposes of exploitation within the UK. The restrictions on the extent of Clause 30 that I have discussed apply only to the application of the offence in Scottish law. I understand what the noble Duke and the noble Baroness are saying with regard to powers in the Bill and the relationship to functions of ports. What needs to be understood is that the approach adopted in Scotland, while different is, as far as ACPO and the police services in Scotland are concerned, workable. I have heard what has been said about the delay sometimes in police officers being present at one of the seven ports where immigration controls are in effect. But they believe that arrangements are effective and work well. They do not feel that they need to change the position, but, if the Scottish Executive took the view that arrangements were not as ideal as they believed, it would be free to legislate. However, the police are there to work in support of the Immigration Service. There is a good level of understanding between those two services; they are becoming much more integrated in the way they operate. That is the position that the Scottish Executive is happy with. Comment has been made in this debate about the position of Alex Salmond. I have little doubt that he wants to co-operate in this field because it would be in no one’s interest, including the Scottish Executive’s, to see any failure in protecting borders, securing places of entry and preventing acts of terrorism, major crime and so on at ports and airports. The recent experience at Glasgow has probably sharpened people’s thinking, and I know from my contact with officials here that there is a heightened sense of awareness of all those issues, but the Scottish Executive is happy with the current position. I understand the motive behind the amendment, but I offer these assurances and I hope that they can be accepted. That is something we need to keep carefully under review, and I am sure that we will. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made reference to the Faroe Isles. My understanding is that the situation is being properly investigated. I do not have any details I can provide about the outcome of those investigations, but I undertake to write to noble Lords to advise and update them if I possibly can, and I shall be more than happy to do so. With regard to small ports, all international arrivals are required to notify passengers to the Home Office and the BIA itself. Those notifications are risk-assessed and screening is undertaken against watch lists. Immigration officers will be deployed if they are required. In Shetland, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is responsible for clearing international passengers; that falls into its area of activity. If it needs to call on other services it will do so on an as-and-when-required basis. That is the position. I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed to the debate because I well understand the points of concern. Finally, on the issue of the Act of Union, we are entirely happy that everything we do is compatible with that, and we have not been advised of any difficulties that have been created through the description and setting out the legislation in the way we have. I am grateful to the noble Duke for having drawn that to our attention.