Clause
30
Timing
Amendment
made: No. 112, in clause 30, page 16, line 6, at end
add—
‘(4) The Secretary of
State may withdraw a decision that section 28(5) applies, or revoke a
deportation order made in accordance with section 28(5), for the
purpose of—
(a) taking
action under the Immigration Acts or rules made under section 3 of the
Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (immigration rules),
and
(b) subsequently taking a
new decision that section 28(5) applies and making a deportation order
in accordance with section 28(5).’.—[Mr.
Byrne.]
Clause
30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
31
Appeal
Amendments
made: No. 113, in clause 31, page 16, leave out from beginning of
line 18 to ‘a’ in line 20 and
insert—
‘“(3A)
Subsection (2)(j) does not apply to a decision to make a deportation
order which states that it is made in accordance with section 28(5) of
the UK Borders Act 2007;
but—
(a) a decision that
section 28(5) applies is an immigration decision for the purposes of
this Part, and
(b)
’.
No.
114, in
clause 31, page 16, line 24, leave
out subsections (4) and (5).—[Mr.
Byrne.]
Clause
31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
32
Detention
Damian
Green:
I beg to move amendment No. 141, in
clause 32, page 17, line 8, at
end add—
‘(6) An individual
detained under subsections (1) and (2) above may not be detained for
longer than six
months.’.
This
is another probing amendment, which was tabled in the same spirit as
the amendments to clause 28. It would mean that the Secretary
of State
could hold a person for only six months after the end of their prison
sentence while considering a decision on what the Bill still calls
automatic deportation. We hope that it will act as a spur on Ministers
to ensure that the extra resources that have already been put into the
IND will be enough to ensure that nobody stays in prison for more than
six months after the end of their sentence before being
deported. The
importance of the provision almost goes without saying for many
reasons, among which are, first and straightforwardly, the increasing
waste of public money that results from keeping people in prison who
should not be in this country; and secondly, and increasingly
topically, the effect of the extra overcrowding in an already
overcrowded prison estate. That is a problem for the prisoners
themselves, as has been shown in several ways in recent months. It also
spills over, hugely dramatically and unfortunately, to the immigration
removal estate. Only last week there were more disturbances at one of
the centres and at the end of last year the Harmondsworth centre was so
seriously damaged that it had to be evacuated.
People in the immigration
removal service have told me, as they will have told Ministers even
more forcefully, that putting large numbers of people who have
committed offences that are bad enough to be jailed for into
immigration removal centres is extremely bad for all concerned.
Inevitably, it makes the centres much more like jails than they would
otherwise be and forces those who may have committed only an
immigration offence to mix with hardened criminals, which is deeply
unfortunate for them. Of course, it is also unfortunate for the staff
involved, who are not particularly trained to look after and control
such people. For all sorts of reasons, both in the IND and for wider
reasons of good order, getting over the crisis of foreign prisoners is
one of the most essential tasks that Ministers face. The purpose of the
amendment is both to probe and to act as a spur, so that the Bill would
state that it is unacceptable simply to keep people locked up while the
processes to enable them to be deported are gone through.
As with previous amendments, I
am not urging the Minister to do anything that he does not want to do.
I am sure that he passionately wishes the amendment was unnecessary
because the deportation system was moving so smoothly that there were
no problems. Sadly, we know that there are, and that they are
continuing. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to
say.
Mr.
Byrne:
Again I find myself starting from the same position
as the hon. Gentleman. One of the most frustrating aspects of the
removal process for many of the individuals to whom I talk in my
constituency is that they cannot understand why we cannot put people to
whom we have issued deportation orders on a plane, let it take off and
touch down in their country of origin, bundle them out of the back and
leave them to the tender mercies of the reception staff at the
airport.
Mr.
Jackson:
That is what my constituents
ask.
Mr.
Byrne:
Absolutely. It is often difficult to explain why it
is sometimes slightly harder in the real world.
A key part of the removals
process is getting people redocumented. I remember being struck by a
story told to me by immigration officers at Dover immigration removal
centre. As we were going round I asked why people were there for longer
than they needed to be, and the officers said that individuals have
often embedded themselves in such a web of lies about who they are and
where they are from that it is difficult to convince a foreign
Government to reissue them a passport so that they can go back
home.
One of the key
things that we need in our system is incentives to encourage people to
co-operate with the redocumentation process so that we can work
effectively with foreign Governments and emergency travel documents can
be issued to individuals. If somebody knew that they would be released
on bail if they strung the process out for six months, we would not
strengthen but rather diminish the incentives for foreign national
prisoners to co-operate with the documentation
process.
David
T.C. Davies:
I do not know how hard the Minister has tried
to get foreign Governments to issue passports. Has it not occurred to
him that many Governments may be large beneficiaries of aid, and that
for a consideration they would probably be more than happy to issue
passports or travel documents to people whose names are supplied to
them by the Minister’s staff? If the result is that somebody
ends up somewhere they did not want to be, the message might go back to
others that they should be a bit more truthful when they answer
questions.
Mr.
Byrne:
The relationship between co-operation, migration
and international development is a subject that ranges widely not only
in government but in the European Union. I, my noble Friend Lord
Triesman and Department for International Development Ministers talk
about the matter a lot, and I believe that we should be strengthening
the links. We will have more to say on that in the months to
come.
The amendment
would basically free foreign national prisoners once they have been
detained for six months. My concern is that that would destroy the
incentive for foreign national prisoners to co-operate with the
documentation process. I understand the ambition behind the amendment;
the hon. Member for Ashford wants to ensure that we do not lock people
up for any longer than necessary. I completely agree with that
intention. We need more detention space, which is why we are building
more, but we also need to increase the throughput rate in our prisons.
Many of the changes that the Home Secretary has proposed will help us
to achieve those increased rates, but we also need these incentives in
place to encourage people to co-operate with the documentation
process.
Damian
Green:
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I
hope that his optimism is fulfilled in real life and I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
32 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
33 to 35 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
36
Supply
of Revenue and Customs information
David
T.C. Davies:
I originally tabled amendment No. 19 as a
probing amendment, because I was not sure of some of the wording in the
clause. However, having had further discussions, I have decided not to
move it.
Clause 36
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
37 to 39 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
40
Search
for evidence of
nationality
Damian
Green:
I beg to move amendment No. 149, in
clause 40, page 21, line 46, at
end insert—
‘(iii) any other
premises that a constable or immigration officer reasonably believes to
contain such
documents.’.
The
Chairman:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 152, in clause 40, page 22, line 16, at end
insert—
‘(4A) The individual
to whom a document found under the provisions of subsection (1) relates
may be liable to be removed from the United Kingdom in accordance with
the provisions of the Immigration
Acts.’.
Damian
Green:
The Bill gives police and immigration officers the
power to enter and search properties for nationality documents,
although that power is limited to where the suspect was arrested or
to
“premises occupied or
controlled by the individual”.
The amendment seeks to extend that scope
to premises where a constable or an immigration officer
“reasonably believes” that the documents might be held.
So its purpose is to help the Government and help the enforcement
procedures that will be instituted by the Bill, by granting the police
and immigration services a modest extension of powers. As the Minister
will be aware, we wish that there was not a distinction in this case
between the police and the immigration services; but that is a debate
that we have had and will no doubt return to.
What is particularly important
about the amendment is that it is at least possible, and in the case of
organised illegal immigration it is arguably probable, that people
would keep nationality documents away from the place that the police
would be most likely to find them. We are aware that the majority of
those people who come here illegally have been trafficked here;
therefore, they will have knowledge of the criminal gangs that are
trafficking them. I think that in previous debates we have been in
agreement on the principle that the organisers should be the main focus
of police investigations. It seems quite likely that, for instance, a
collection of passports or other documents might well be held on some
other premises by the person who is most intimately involved with the
trafficking operation.
12.15
pm
One
could easily envisage huge frustration on the part of investigating
officers if they find that they are only allowed to search some
premises when they reasonably suspect that all the evidence is being
kept on other premises. That is not a theoretical construction. It is
easy to imagine such a situation. There are other situations that one
can easily imagine in which a suspect reveals something under
interrogation that would send police officers in another direction,
looking in other areas for the relevant piece of evidence. The
amendment seeks an extension of powers; we are not universally in
favour of such extensions, but this one seems to be practical and
useful.
Amendment
No. 152 would mean that individuals who have had their documents seized
might be subject to deportation under the Asylum and
Immigration Act 1999. The purpose of the amendment is to
clarify whether those who are arrested and potentially charged under
the provisions of the Bill are subject to deportation procedures from
the UK by virtue of having committed crimes that are covered by the
clause. It is a probing amendment because I assume that that would be
the intent of the clause, but it is not clear to us that that would be
the effect. I should be grateful for
clarification.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Joan
Ryan):
This power will assist us in ascertaining or
confirming the nationality of persons in order to consider cases liable
for deportation, which refers to the hon. Gentleman’s second
amendment. It is part of our plans for improving the effectiveness of
handling foreign nationals within the criminal justice system and it
will affect persons arrested for criminal offences, so that their
nationality can be established at an earlier stage. That will be when
they first enter the criminal justice system. It will be achieved by
immigration officers and the police having the power to search premises
for documents relating to nationality or identity where a person has
been taken to a police station following their arrest for a criminal
offence. It applies to persons who are suspected of not being British
citizens and where relevant documents may be found on the premises.
Safeguards will be put in place to ensure that that power is not
applied disproportionately, and inquiries will be made to see whether
the individual is already know to the IND before a search is
instigated. Searches will be necessary only where an individual fails
to co-operate in establishing his or her identity, or the officer has
reasonable grounds to believe that he is not telling the truth. The
power of search will be exercised by a constable or an immigration
officer only after authorisation by a senior official, who must give
written authority for the use of the power. We are proposing to operate
a pilot in one or two police areas to test operational details. Any
disproportionate impact will be identified by the pilot and
addressed.
I can say to
the hon. Gentleman in relation to his amendments that the conditions
and restrictions contained in clause 40 are intended to ensure that the
power to enter premises in order to search for nationality documents is
proportionate. Although I think that it is useful to talk about the
scope of those powers, and how wide they may or may not be, we feel
that it is unnecessary and potentially disproportionate under article 8
of the
European convention on human rights to widen the power to enter and
search premises for relevant documents to “any other
premises”.
Damian
Green:
I take that point, and I explained that I was
trying to probe. However, the scenario that I gave seems extremely
likely. If it can occur to me, no doubt it can occur to the sort of
people who engage in people trafficking that if they remove all the
evidence to a different location, they will have solved one of their
problems as a criminal. That seems both likely to happen and hugely
damaging to police investigations. Could the hon. Lady provide some
comfort on how the police will get around that fairly obvious criminal
practice?
Joan
Ryan:
It is unnecessary and disproportionate because
relevant identity documents are more likely to be found at the home of
the individual arrested, or where the individual was when arrested.
However, in cases where a person is not a British citizen and may be
liable to be deported, in principle, where the Secretary of State has
deemed their deportation to be conducive to the public good, or where
the person has been recommended for deportation by a court following
conviction for an imprisonable offence, such persons may be liable for
deportation even if they do not fit the threshold in criteria set out
in our clauses on automatic deportation.
In amendment No. 152, the hon.
Gentleman asks about the purpose. That is, indeed, to be able to
facilitate deportation at an appropriate time by ensuring that when
they enter the criminal justice system we are able to establish at an
early stage the nationality of an individual who is suspected of not
being a British citizen. Clause 40 gives powers to search for
nationality documents but does not have bearing on powers for
deportation, whether they exist under this Bill or not. This is about
establishing nationality where necessary so that deportation can take
place in appropriate cases at a later stage.
On amendment No. 149, we feel
that a decision has to be taken about how proportionate the power is,
and about what evidence there is of the need to widen that power. The
evidence is that the scope of the power as drafted will be appropriate
and proportionate, but I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that,
following legislation, we intend to run a number of pilots. Clearly,
that will be instructive on how these powers and their use are working
operationally. Should there be an issue about scope, I am sure that we
will acquire information from those pilots that could be looked at
again in future. However, on the clause before us, we are convinced
that we have got it about right in terms of the proportionality of the
power and in terms of ensuring that we meet our
responsibilities under article 8 of the ECHR.
I have addressed the
amendments, which I understand are probing amendments. I also
understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern that we are able to
search appropriately for evidence of nationality; like him, we
understand the importance of acquiring that evidence as early as
possible so that deportation, if appropriate, is also possible later in
the process. With that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is able to
withdraw his amendments.
Damian
Green:
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that
explanation, and I hope that she will go away and look at this again.
She said that she believes that these documents are most likely to be
found at the address of the person to whom they directly relate, but I
put it to her that that will not be the case if the legislation were
passed in this way—because that will be the only place where the
police are allowed to investigate. One does not need a great criminal
brain to work out that if one leaves the evidence somewhere else, and
the police are not empowered to investigate it, one is less likely to
be caught. For practical reasons, I hope that Ministers will reconsider
the powers of the police and immigration officers in that regard. The
Bill contains an enormous loophole, and nothing that the Minister has
said persuaded me that its existence has been adequately addressed.
Nevertheless, for the time being, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 40 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clauses 41 to 43 ordered to
stand part of the Bill.
| 
