Clause
18
Support
for asylum-seekers:
enforcement
Paul
Rowen:
I beg to move amendment No. 131, in
clause 18, page 10, leave out lines 2 to
5.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 88, in
clause 18, page 10, line 3, after
‘officer’, insert
‘designated under section 1 of the
UK Borders Act
2007’.
No. 89,
in
clause 18, page 10, line 3, after
‘the’, insert
‘designated’.
No.
91, in
clause 20, page 11, line 15, after
‘officer’, insert
‘designated under section 1 of the
UK Borders Act
2007’.
No. 93,
in clause 20, page 11, leave out lines 30
to 34 and insert—
‘(f) the
designated immigration officer shall deliver the seized cash to a
constable within 48 hours of its seizure. The constable shall then
treat this as cash seized by himself under section 294 of the Proceeds
of Crime Act 2002 (c.
29),’.
No.
133, in
clause 20, page 11, line 39, at
end insert—
‘(2A) The
Secretary of State shall make regulations to make provision about the
qualification, training and complaints procedure for a designated
immigration officer involved in the seizure of
cash.
(2B) The regulations made
under subsection (2A) shall be subject to a resolution of both Houses
of
Parliament.’.
Paul
Rowen:
We are now moving on to enforcement procedures. The
two amendments that stand in my name seek to deal with those measures,
in the first case by ensuring that any officer who attempts to make an
enforcement has a proper warrant. This is part of the probing process;
I want to establish from the Minister the process by which the
provisions will operate. Secondly, I seek to ensure that the officer is
properly designated, as we discussed earlier.
The provisions are important.
Exercising those powers without the benefit of a warrant would set a
dangerous precedent. I want the Minister to explain the purpose of the
provision, and I want to ensure that the people involved are properly
designated.
Damian
Green:
The amendments standing in my name fall into two
categories. Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 91 are all similar in intent to
the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Rochdale, because
amendment No. 88 would require the arresting immigration officer in
part 6 of the 1999 Act to be a designated officer under the terms of
the Bill. Amendment No. 99 is consequential on that amendment. In
relation to immigration officers being able to seize cash, amendment
No. 91 would insert “designated” into part 5 of the
Proceeds of CrimeAct 2002.
As we have just heard, the
amendments take us back to different clauses and earlier arguments
about the extension of powers to immigration officers. In particular,
they refer to the adequacy of training in what we all acknowledge is a
difficult job, the officers’ suitability for the job, and
underlying all that, the required level of public confidence in the
system. Like the hon. Gentleman, I shall be interested to hear the
Minister’s views on whether it would be more suitable to give
those enforcement powers to highly empowered designated
officers.
Amendment
No. 93 addresses a different problem about the cash that can be seized
under the clause. The amendment says
that
“the designated
immigration officer shall deliver the seized cash to a constable within
48 hours of its
seizure.”
It would also
enable the constable to whom the cash was delivered to treat it as cash
seized by him under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. In practical terms,
it would require an immediate handover of cash from the immigration
officer to the police, and its effect would simply be to save taxpayers
money.
The police
must quite rightly go through tightly drawn and rigorous procedures
when handling cash that they have seized during the course of their
work. Given those procedures, the expertise of the police and the
amount of cash that passes through their hands, few problems arise from
such administration, for which we should be thankful. Amendment No. 93
would allow the police to continue the difficult and sensitive work
that they do well and in which they are experienced, and the Government
would not have to set up a parallel system for immigration
officers.
6.14
pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
6.31
pm
On
resuming—
Damian
Green:
As I was saying, the job of handling seized cash is
done perfectly competently by the police already and amendment No. 93
seeks to prevent the necessity of setting up a parallel system for
immigration officers for two reasons. First, as has been observed, any
change is difficult for the Home Office. Secondly, because of the
bureaucracy that is inevitably and rightly involved in such a sensitive
area of operations, for which proper checks and systems are absolutely
vital, it would be expensive and unnecessary to set up a parallel set
of checks. I commend amendment No. 93 to the Under-Secretary, as well
as the previous amendments about using only designated immigration
officers to exercise the new powers.
Joan
Ryan:
Clause 18 will amend the Immigration and Asylum Act
1999 to give
an
“immigration
officer the power to arrest without warrant a person
whom”
he or
she
“reasonably
suspects has committed an offence undersection 105 or
106”,
which are about
seeking to obtain asylum support by making false or dishonest
representations. The clause will also ensure that the same powers that
allow an immigration officer to enter premises to arrest or search and
seize relevant evidence will apply to that type of offence. Giving
immigration officers a power of arrest for those offences will enable
them to pursue independent operations against asylum support fraud,
which is as the Government intend. The measure is an essential part of
the immigration and nationality directorate’s deterrence policy
against what are, as everyone will agree, serious offences, which can
involve a significant amount of money. Immigration officers have held
powers of arrest, entry, search and seizure for a number of criminal
offences since the introduction of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
The powers came into effect on 14 February 2000 so, rather than giving
new powers, the clause applies existing powers to offences under
sections 105 and 106 of the 1999 Act.
I would like, however, to
reassure the hon. Gentleman about the exercise of this power. As I
said, it is comparable to existing powers of arrest that are exercised
without warrant. For example, officers have the power to arrest for
fraud under section 14 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of
Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. It is right that an officer can arrest
without warrant, because that is a serious offence and in certain
circumstances officers need to be able to act quickly.
Only immigration officers who
have the appropriate training will be able to exercise the power of
arrest. That is a point of concern to Opposition Members, and I wish to
reassure them about the level of training that officers receive. It is
provided by Centrex, a non-departmental government body that works with
the police. That training is therefore undertaken on the advice of the
police and with their involvement. I am satisfied that it is
appropriate. It consists of a three-week arrest course and equips an
officer to search premises and persons and arrest individuals in
accordance with the Police and Criminal EvidenceAct 1984. It
covers a conflict resolution model and safety training, which must be
refreshed annually.
The training presents greater
difficulties than hon. Members are perhaps aware of when they suggest
that immigration officers are not able to act independently. They are
given appropriate powers, training and oversight. Some of the issues
that we are discussing are not operational priorities for the police,
and the Association of Chief Police Officers is not concerned about the
powers being given to immigration officers because there is appropriate
training and oversight. It is not as straightforward as it might sound
to effect an arrest, seize evidence in order to effect a prosecution
and ensure that that evidence is handed over rather than retained by
finding the appropriate constable. It might sound straightforward but
it can in fact be problematic.
If immigration officers have the
appropriate training and the police think the powers being given to
them are appropriate—they are not new powers; they are just
being applied to the offence in question and the seizure of evidence
related to it—we should agree to the clause and ensure that our
immigration officers can work effectively against relevant
fraud.
As I have
said, immigration officers already have fairly extensive powers of
arrest for fraud, illegal employer activity, illegal working,
facilitation, failure to report, deception, illegal entry and other
offences. That is just a sample. About 40 per cent. of enforcement
officers are now arrest trained, and a much smaller percentage of
immigration officers at the borders have such training. By 2008, we
expect all officers to be arrest trained. If not everybody in a team is
arrest trained, there must be police support in the team. If all its
members have received arrest training, it can operate independently of
the
police.
Damian
Green:
This is a fascinating practical point. As the
Under-Secretary said, there are currently two tiers: those who are
arrest trained and those who are not. How much extra training will the
arrest trained immigration officers need to become designated
immigration
officers?
Joan
Ryan:
The hon. Gentleman refers to designated immigration
officers. That might be where there is a problem in the drafting of his
amendment. I am not clear whether it is unintended or not. It
says
“‘designated
under section 1 of the UK Borders Act
2007.’”
If his
amendments applied, the only immigration officers who could have these
powers would be those who are designated to detain at port. Whereas the
immigration officers that we are talking about, and the powers we wish
them to be able to use in relation to asylum support fraud, are not
necessarily at port at all. According to the Government, the
designation is that they will be designated as arrest
trained.
Those
exercising the power of seizing evidence would also undergo training
with the Assets Recovery Agency. We need to be cautious about not
confusing the use of the term “designation.” Those
officers will be arrest trained in the manner that I have just
explained as they are to exercise exactly these powers in relation to
the other offences that I outlined. However, according to these
amendments, and as we have discussed previously, only those
officers
“‘designated under section
1 of the UK Borders Act
2007’”
could carry
out this power of arrest, which are those designated to detain at port.
That would not make
sense.
Damian
Green:
We could argue that point. However, is the
Under-Secretary saying, in response to my original intervention, that
the designated officers can just be designated and that if they are
already arrest trained, they do need any extra training to become
designated officers at
port?
Joan
Ryan:
No, I am not referring to designated officers at
port with the ability to detain. The provision refers to teams of
immigration officers who carry out
enforcement activities, not necessarily at a port at all and who are
able to arrest in relation to an immigration offence.
In terms of officers designated
at port, the purpose of that designation—as I understand
it—is that they can detain individuals for up to three hours who
are not necessarily being detained in relation to an immigration
offence and who may be a British citizen. That is somewhat different.
If the hon. Gentleman is asking about the training for officers at
ports who are exercising the powers that he refers to under clauses 1
to 4, I would have to undertake to write to him. That is not the same
as the powers being discussed in this clause nor would these
immigration officers receive the same
training.
John
Hemming:
It shows an element of confusion in the drafting
of the Bill that a person needs to be designated for the purpose of
clause 2, but not for the purpose of arresting. There is no statutory
distinction. Each of those are functions for which one is trained. One
presumes that one is a superset of the other; that designation is a
superset of arrest. However, one would expect some clarity from the
Government on
that.
6.45
pm
Joan
Ryan:
I do not think that there is any confusion in the
drafting of the Bill. It is meant to be read clause by clause and
section by section, and if that is done, it is not in the least
confusing.
Designation at port relates to
the power of an immigration officer to detain an individual at
port—not necessarily in relation to an immigration offence and
not necessarily a foreign national. That is the significant difference
between the powers of immigration officers and the powers of the police
in relation to the issue that we are discussing. The offences relate to
immigration matters, not to anything else. The only situation in which
the powers might be applicable to a British citizen is when somebody
somehow facilitates fraud relating to asylum seeker support. There is a
significant difference in the powers and they do not overlap in the way
that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about.
Limiting cash seizure powers to
officers designated under regulations would restrict the application
and use of the powers. In particular, amendment No. 91 would limit the
exercise of the power to designated immigration officers at ports in
England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In effect, unless someone was at a
port, the amendment would make it impossible to seize the evidence
relating to the
offence.
Damian
Green:
The Under-Secretary has either just confused me or
illuminated an extraordinary point about the first part of the Bill. I
assume that once someone has been designated an immigration officer at
a port, they do not stop being designated just because they are not
working at a port. Presumably, it is not true to say that a designated
officer will never be away from the port when they could still possibly
be making arrests and seizures of cash.
Joan
Ryan:
The officers to whom I am referring are not
designated officers at port; they are immigration officers who have
been specially trained in arrest procedures. That is not necessarily
the same as being a designated officer at port. A designated officer at
port may well have had arrest training, but an arrest trained
immigration officer operating outside the port is not necessarily a
designated officer at port. Designation as a term does not apply
outside the port, as outlined by clauses 1 to 4, which the Committee
discussed earlier.
John
Hemming:
The question being asked is why we have a
statutory designation for someone who is trained for one function and
not for someone who is trained for another function with which I argue
that there is substantial
overlap.
Joan
Ryan:
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are
significantly increasing enforcement activity and that is why, across
the board, we want all our enforcement officers to be arrest trained so
that that they can undertake specified activities and the required
level of enforcement.
There are a number of
safeguards in relation to the powers that will give some reassurance to
the hon. Members. For example, subject to regulation made under section
4 of the Police and Justice Act 2006, the powers will be subject to
regulation and scrutiny by the Independent Police Complaints
Commission. That is a strength. The Immigration (PACE Codes of
Practice) Direction 2000 will also apply to the use of the powers. A
strong safeguard and scrutiny process is therefore in place. As I said,
only officers who have had the appropriate training will be able to
exercise the powers, and safeguards will be employed to ensure that
they are used correctly. The powers will enable us to continue to ramp
up our enforcement activity, ensure that it is effective and meet our
commitment to deal with fraud of this kind. That probably covers all
the points that I wish to
make.
As I said, it is
important to bear in mind that we are not giving new powers to
immigration officers, but simply applying them to a different set of
offences. The powers have operated well and without problems since
2000, which means that we should be confident to move forward and allow
immigration officers to use the same powers in relation to this
offence.
Paul
Rowen:
I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation
of the operation of the clause. Our initial concern was whether it
enhances the powers of immigration officers without ensuring that the
relevant training and support is in place, and I am pleased that she
has reassured us that the training already takes place. We are merely
seeking to extend the use of trained officers in this area.
I agree with the hon. Member
for Ashford that there is a little confusion about designation. I
understand the point about clauses 1 to 4, but what safeguards are
there to ensure that any immigration officer involved in a seizure,
arrest or search has gone through the required training? I thought that
the point of the term “designated” in clauses 1 to 4 was
to ensure that those safeguards were in place, and I think a similar
provision would have been pertinent in this clause,
albeit for a different reason. However, I am happy to accept the
Minister’s assurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
18 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
