Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]

Before speaking to my amendments, I shall address the issue of short-term holding facilities. There are at present concerns about short-term holding. Although there has been some jocular reference to the conditions in these facilities, the people detained in them are not criminals; they are being detained while further investigations take place. My concern about the new clause is that it would extend the short-term holding facility definition to police cells and prison cells. That is a worrying move, and I am also concerned about people being left in such short-term holding for considerable lengths of time. That is why I support the amendments which try to limit the hours for which people are detained. The amendments in my name are amendments 9 and 10 to 13. When we debate legislation such as this, it is important that we look at the practicalities of the implementation of its provisions. I have Heathrow in my constituency and a large number of my constituents are immigration or customs officers. Most of them are organised through the Public and Commercial Services Union, and I co-ordinate the PCS group. We therefore get considerable feedback about the anxieties of existing staff about the changes proposed in the Bill. As hon. Members are aware, at present there are three lines of inspection—three sequential control points—for people coming into this country and therefore three opportunities for detection and intelligence. Passengers, vehicles and traffic are potentially subject to three checks: by immigration, by customs and then by the police. Over time, specialist knowledge and training have been built up in each area, as has, therefore, a professionalism. Under clause 3, the Secretary of State can designate""an immigration officer, or…any other official in that Secretary of State's department, as a general customs official."" That is an extremely sweeping power—"any other official" in the Department could, I suppose, apply to the departmental cat. The breadth of the designation powers being given to the Secretary of State is extraordinary. That has caused unease among officers in the service, whose first concern is that the extent of the power could lead to privatisation. I am grateful for the time that the Minister and management have taken to meet trade union reps and to reassure them that the thrust of the legislation is not about privatisation, but about trying to streamline the service, as some have said, and increase its effectiveness. The staff have gone along with that by looking at how effectiveness can be achieved. There are still concerns, however, that the professionalism of the service will be undermined by the breakdown of specialisms. Nevertheless, the staff have gone into negotiations through PCS to look at where the specialisms can be maintained or drawn upon in a unified service. However, it is accepted that there will be change and that not all will be catered for. I have seen the correspondence between the union and management, and the union accepts that the business model being pursued by management will mean that there may not be a sufficient number of posts at every port to satisfy everyone's wishes. The union recognises that, as a result, management may wish to redeploy staff to new duties. That displays a flexibility in those discussions from the union in order to ensure that the implementation of the legislation is delivered as Ministers want it to be delivered. However, there are genuine concerns about what could happen as a result of the breadth of the Secretary of State's powers. That is why my amendments seek to limit those powers and ensure that the Secretary of State can designate from either existing staff—that is, customs officers—or staff who are specifically recruited for that purpose. My amendments would also remove the flexibility that the Secretary of State is seeking to give himself to designate customs officers for a limited period, so that we can inspire existing staff, see them as professionals, build on their expertise and recognise that they need both the security of employment and the respect for their profession that they are pursuing in the longer term. The implementation of the legislation could fall at the earliest point, however, because of the breakdown of the discussions that have taken place so far. Unfortunately, there has been a rush by elements in management to implement the single border approach, with the recent publication of integrated guidance, which has triggered some managers to change shift patterns, job content and ways of working among staff, despite the offer by the union to become involved in workplace planning and to look at how people can be redeployed. At the moment, if the legislation goes through and there is no proper consultation between management and the unions, which is what should happen, there will be industrial action on its first implementation in August. At the moment, the union is balloting on that industrial action. I believe that the Government have a responsibility to intervene to ensure that the management respect the wishes of the House. The current union offer is that there should be a moratorium, not on change but on the compulsion on staff to move from their existing positions to new ones, and that that moratorium on compulsion linked to change should last until May next year. However, I understand that the management want it to last only until December, so we are talking about a difference of six months. If the management remain intransigent, there will be industrial action in August next year—August is one of the busiest periods for customs and immigration officers—and the morale of the staff and their confidence in the new system that the Government are introducing will have been undermined. The Minister has intervened recently to reassure the staff that the sweeping power that he has given himself will not be used for privatisation or to bulldoze through measures that undermine the professionalism and morale of the existing staff. As I have said, there is a meeting on Friday between the unions and the management. If no agreement is reached, the ballot that is now taking place could well produce a majority in favour of industrial action, and the service will face a crisis at its very birth. Will the Minister give me an assurance that if no agreement is reached on Friday, he will meet Members of the House to see what can be done to resolve the industrial relations problems that the new service, as set out in the Bill, seems to be encountering at its birth? A residue of good will among the immigration and customs officers within the Minister's Department and elsewhere has been drawn on, and it now needs to be bolstered, rather than undermined at this early stage. I do not believe that it is too much to ask of the service that there should at least be a moratorium on compulsory redeployment between now and May, so that negotiations can take place to protect the staff who are in situ at the moment. They are professionals who have served this country relatively well over the years. In fact, one of the arguments that we have had in the House has centred not on their professionalism but on the fact that there have been too few of them. We need to build on the strengths of the existing service, and that is what we are seeking to do. The amendments enable me to highlight the problems that exist in the service at the moment, and I hope the Minister will give me the undertaking that if negotiations fail on Friday, we can have a quick ministerial meeting with Members and, hopefully, resolve the outstanding issues. That would enable the service to go forward on a basis of professionalism and with increased morale and stability from the beginning.