UK Borders Bill

My Lords, as ever, I congratulate your Lordships’ House on dreaming up many questions relating to an amendment; and very helpfully so, because clearly noble Lords have pondered these issues. I am grateful to noble Lords, in particular to the noble Baronesses, Lady Stern and Lady Carnegy of Lour, for their very thoughtful contributions. This Government have listened very carefully during the Bill’s passage to the points that were put forward calling for the provisions of the PACE framework to apply in respect of the detention at ports provision. We had some useful discussions in Grand Committee, and I engaged in some detailed correspondence with noble Lords trying to set out for them how these matters were to work. I thought that we had covered most, if not nearly all, of the points that were raised. I apologise if that is not the case. I thought that we had satisfied most noble Lords on these issues. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for bringing back his amendment because it allows me a few moments to set out some issues and concerns and answer some additional points. The Government are not in vast disagreement with the spirit or principle that lies behind the amendment. For that reason, we felt able to set out at an earlier stage some detailed consideration of those issues. We entirely understand that there needs to be a mechanism in place to oversee the use of these powers by designated immigration officers—that is officers who are designated to deal with these issues, to answer the point made by my noble friend Lady Turner—but we maintain the view that this mechanism can sufficiently, and most appropriately, be provided in the form of clear and specific standard operating procedures, or SOPs. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, reminded the House that we are conducting reviews in this area. I take the point made by the right reverend Prelate that we are considering an issue that has some bearing on these reviews, but that is often a fact of life when dealing with legislation. Things move on during the passage of a Bill, and other issues come into play, and there may need to be some further consideration at a later stage. It is an iterative process, which is not unknown to many of us in dealing with legislation. Those two key reviews that the Government are conducting will, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, rightly said, have an impact on this to a greater or lesser degree. On 25 July, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made a Statement in the other place primarily focusing on security issues. He announced a review that would consider how the vital work of the Border and Immigration Agency, Customs and UK Visas, overseas and at the main points of entry to the UK, in due course may become a unified border force. In instigating that review, a view has to be taken on some of these other issues. A small border review team, led by the Cabinet Office and composed of people from the departments and agencies involved, is now progressing that work. The team’s conclusions will have an impact on the fundamental shape and nature of frontier control and on the way in which the border agencies will exercise their functions. The second key review is of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—the PACE provisions—which was launched on 16 March. That was an open, extensive process, inviting comments on the need for revision of the 1984 Act and the PACE codes. A summary of responses was published by the Home Office Policing Powers and Protection Unit in July. In general terms, there was, "““an admiration for the framework that PACE provides and for its pivotal status setting out the rules and procedures that must be followed in the investigation and prosecution of crime””." I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for her telling observation that processes are important and getting the procedures right in detail is absolutely key. I completely share that view, and that is why we are approaching this matter with some considerable care. Responses clearly favoured the codes of practice being produced in, "““a format and style which improved their accessibility, their use and their applicability to the user””." The next phase of the consultation programme will consist of a series of regional seminars with stakeholders and practitioners and a programme of bilateral meetings with key stakeholders. The contents will be subject to a final phase of consultation in spring 2008 to consider the final proposals for legislative and administrative change. The outcome of those reviews may have significant implications both for front-line functionality and for the format and style of the PACE codes. It is important, therefore, that we await the outcome of those reviews before considering any fundamental change in our position on the application of the PACE codes of practice to the detention at ports powers. For that fundamental reason, I invite noble Lords to consider withdrawing the amendment. That does not in any way, shape or form undermine the importance of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has raised, and I fully acknowledge their importance. Oversight arrangements will of course be similar to those currently in place as regards similar powers of detention for immigration purposes. The process is designed to ensure that we have clear policy guidance and clear operational instructions; that administrative arrangements for authorisations and review by senior officers—chief immigration officers and immigration inspectors—are in place; that there are effective departmental audit and compliance arrangements; and that there is oversight of decision-making by the independent Race Monitor, who makes an annual report to the Home Secretary. I make that observation in the context of the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Judd about issues such as racial profiling, because I recognised the significance and importance of those concerns. What we have set out will satisfy many of those concerns, and the detail is very important, because without that detail and ensuring that the procedures are properly described, there is scope for confusion. I shall answer some of the more specific points. My noble friend Lord Judd asked whether there was provision in the standard operating procedures for intimate searches. Perhaps it is worth saying that there is no power under Clauses 1 to 4 to undertake intimate searches; so in a sense, as envisaged by PACE, there is no specific meaning to the notion of intimate searches in the way that my noble friend envisaged that they might be applied. A question arose as to when the final version of procedures might be available. It will not be available until we can take account of the Home Office review and the wider consideration of PACE codes. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised concerns additional to those he expressed earlier on this matter. Of course there is consultation with the Association of Police Officers and we have begun that process. We do not expect it to conclude until we understand and know the outcome of the other reviews. I give an undertaking that we will consult with relevant stakeholders, including those who are most concerned about the welfare of children, because that is right and we need to ensure that the consultation is properly detailed and that we will reflect on the issues. I hope that I dealt with the point raised by my noble friend Lady Turner. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a drafting point—what does ““thinks”” mean? There is no difference between ““thinks”” and ““is satisfied that””. The use of ““thinks”” reflects current legislative practice. All I can say on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, is that nothing in the Bill changes the nature of our relationship with those in the common travel area, which, of course, includes the Republic of Ireland. I take the noble Lord’s general point that we must have effective border control and management—that has informed all of our debates on the Bill. I hope that, in time, that we can satisfy all the aspirations expressed by my noble friend Lord Judd, because I do not think that there is much distance between us. I understand the sensitivity of the issues he raised and we will continue to reflect on them throughout the consultation process and deliberate on the findings of the two important reviews that are currently in train.