![]() House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates UK Borders Bill |
UK Borders Bill | ||||||||||
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Emily
Commander, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 20 March 2007(Afternoon)[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]UK Borders BillScheduleRepeals
Amendment
proposed
[this day]: No. 116, in schedule,
page 25, line 4, at end
insert
[Mr.
Byrne.]
4.30
pm
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman:
I remind the Committee that with this we are
taking the following: Government amendments Nos. 117 to
119.
Government new
clause 6Border and Immigration Inspectorate:
Establishment
(1) The
Secretary of State shall appoint a person as Chief Inspector of the
Border and Immigration
Agency.
(2) The Chief Inspector
shall monitor and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the
Border and Immigration Agency; in particular, the Chief Inspector shall
consider and make recommendations
about
(a) consistency
of approach within the Border and Immigration
Agency,
(b) the practice and
performance of the Border and Immigration Agency compared to other
persons doing similar
things,
(c) practice and
procedure in making
decisions,
(d) the treatment of
claimants and applicants,
(e)
certification under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and
Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (unfounded
claim),
(f) compliance with law
about discrimination in the exercise of functions, including reliance
on section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) (exception
for immigration functions),
(g)
practice and procedure in relation to the exercise of enforcement
powers (including powers of arrest, entry, search and
seizure),
(h) the provision of
information,
(i) the handling
of complaints, and
(j) the
content of information about conditions in countries outside the United
Kingdom which the Secretary of State compiles and makes available, for
purposes connected with immigration and asylum, to immigration officers
and other officials.
(3) In
this section the Border and Immigration Agency
means
(a) immigration
officers, and
(b) other officials of the Secretary of State, and
the Secretary of State, in respect of functions relating to
immigration, asylum or
nationality.
(4) The Chief
Inspector shall not aim to investigate individual cases (although this
subsection does not prevent the Chief Inspector from considering or
drawing conclusions about an individual case for the purpose of, or in
the context of, considering a general
issue)..
And
the following amendment thereto: (a), Leave out subsection (4) and
insert
(4) The Chief
Inspector shall have the power to investigate individual
cases..
Government
new clause 7Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Chief
Inspector:
supplemental
.
Government
new clause 8Border and Immigration Inspectorate:
Reports
(1) The Chief
Inspector shall report in writing to the Secretary of
State
(a) once each
calendar year, in relation to the performance of the functions under
section [Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Establishment] generally,
and
(b) at other times as
requested by the Secretary of State in relation to specified
matters.
(2) The Secretary of
State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any report received under
subsection (1).
(3) But a copy
may omit material if the Secretary of State thinks that its
publication
(a) is
undesirable for reasons of national security,
or
(b) might jeopardise an
individuals
safety..
And
the following amendment thereto: (a), after State,
insert and the Information
Commissioner.
Government
new clause 9Border and Immigration Inspectorate:
Plans
.
Government
new clause 10Border and Immigration Inspectorate:
Relationship with other bodies:
general
.
Government
new clause 11Border and Immigration Inspectorate:
Relationship with other bodies: non-interference
notices
.
Government
new clause 12Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Abolition
of other
bodies
.
Government
new clause 13Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Prescribed
matters
.
Government
new clause 14Senior President of
Tribunals.
Damian
Green (Ashford) (Con): When we adjourned, I was dealing
with my amendment to new clause 8 and specifically with the
Ministers reason for thinking it unnecessary for the
Information Commissioner to have some kind of oversight of material
that should be deleted from the report given to Parliament by the
proposed new inspectorate. I was about to say that I found his
explanation somewhat unconvincing. It appeared to rely on the fact that
rather than have the Information Commissioner exercise some kind of
oversight in advance, it would always be possible for him to do so
after the publication of the report.
That is simply implausible. By
definition, the material that had been kept out by the Home Secretary
would, at least on the surface, have been kept out for reasons either
of the personal security of individuals or of national security. In
that case it is hard to see how in
practice the Information Commissioner would have access to that
information, still less that anyone could make a successful freedom of
information request that might trigger some activity by the Information
Commissioner. I just did not follow why the Minister thought that that
would be an effective second line of defence of the ability to
scrutinise the material that the Home Secretary thought was unsuitable
to be given to Parliament. As with my amendment to new clause 6, I hope
to press my amendment to new clause 8 to a
vote.
The
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Mr.
Liam Byrne):
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
amendments. They have given us the opportunity to explore one or two
issues in some helpful detail. My concern remains that the new
arrangements that we are putting in place can conduct their business
efficiently and effectively, without being drowned by bits of paper
from Government Departments seeking pre-clearance from the Information
Commissioner before we put things into the public domain, particularly
where they relate to issues of personal security or national security.
On the other hand, I do not want the new regulator to be snowed under
with cases put up by people who are simply trying to avoid removal or
deportation from this country. We are broadly in a similar place. I
will reflect on his comments before thinking through whether further
Government amendments should be brought forward. I understand that the
hon. Gentleman wants to press the amendments to a vote in order that I
do not forget that
point.
Amendment agreed
to.
Amendments
made: No. 117, in
schedule, page 25, line 7, column 2, at
beginning
insert
No.
118, in schedule,
page 25, line 8, column 2, at
beginning
insert
No.
119, in
schedule, page 25, line 12, at end
insert
Schedule,
as amended, agreed
to.
Clause 44Commencement
Damian
Green:
I beg to move amendment No. 108, in
clause 44, page 23, line 19, after,
17 insert and section
27.
The
amendment is designed to make the Bill more effective in one of the
areas where I think there is no division on either side of the House
and indeed it may be particularly appropriate that we debate this while
in
the Chamber we debate the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave
trade. This amendment would make it easier and certainly quicker to
attempt to stamp out the modern form of slavery which is people
trafficking.
The effect of
this clause is to add to the commencement section of the Bill section
27, the offences that relate to people trafficking. As currently
drafted, only clause 17 of the Bill, support for failed asylum-seekers,
comes into force the day the Bill becomes an Act. What we seek to do is
to add a reference to section 27 so that we can get a move on with
attacking people trafficking.
Everyone on
the Committee has participated in debates about the despicable practice
of people trafficking. The Government have signalled their intention to
tighten up the law, indeed to sign the Council of Europe convention
that will enable them to do so, and we welcome that and we support them
in that move.
The
Minister will recall that when we discussed our amendments to clause 17
we were keen that this House should send a very clear message that we
are all serious about toughening up the law and we think that this
amendment is a very clear and easy way of doing that. It would ensure
that the provisions relating to people trafficking are brought in at
the earliest opportunity. We believe this would act as a deterrent and
it will also enable the conviction and punishment of as many people
traffickers as possible. I am sure the Minister will agree that the
sooner we can start on that course of action the
better.
The earliest
opportunity to start doing that is the day this Bill passes on to the
statute book and that is what this amendment would achieve. I hope
therefore that it will be regarded sympathetically by the
Government.
John
Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): The amendment seems
very sensible and one which I am sure the Government will
support.
Mr.
Byrne:
I did indeed look upon this amendment with a great
deal of sympathy because I think the Committee has been united in the
debates we have had on this subject over the last few weeks. There has
been a very clear determination that the law in this area needs to be
strengthened. I therefore sought some strong arguments as to why we
should not accept this amendment. Only one thing swayed my mind and
there is only one reason that I therefore ask the hon. Member for
Ashford to consider withdrawing this amendment.
The advice that I have received
is that there is a riska small risk but a risk none the
lessthat the courts would potentially not look favourably on
our attempts to prosecute under this offence if we did not observe the
convention of seeking a brief interlude in which to publicise the fact
that this new offence had been introduced.
I am told that it is usual to
bring in offences after a period of two months. I do not want to
riskand I am sure nobody on this Committee would wish to
riskany potential prosecution for an offence such as this going
wrong because we did not observe this protocol. If the risk is there we
should be alive to it. My concern is that when this offence is
introduced we are able to maximise the effectiveness of our
prosecutions using this offence. If there is a risk that puts that
potential in jeopardy, I think I should accept that
advice. Therefore I ask the hon. Gentleman to
withdraw the amendment because the argument that has been put to me is
that there may well be no interlude in which we can
publicise
publicise
this offence and therefore if prosecutions may be in jeopardy I think
the amendment should be withdrawn. The brief interlude of two months is
not a big time period. If it allows us, however, to increase our
chances of successful prosecutions, I think we should take
it.
Damian
Green:
I find that explanation quite extraordinary. It is
not clear why that convention has built upif it has built up. I
confess that in my 10 years in this House I have never heard that
explanation for delaying commencement. I fully accept that the Minister
will have been given that advicealthough I sense that he is
taking it with extreme reluctance.
It seems that the courts could
put prosecutions in jeopardy because an offence had not been
sufficiently publicised. I am not a lawyer, I am glad to say, but one
of the clichÃ(c)s to which I cling is that ignorance of the law is
no excuse. There will be huge tracts of the statute book about which
Committee members know nothing, but none of us would be able to say
Well, the prosecution should not happen because I did not know
I was breaking the law. In this instance, the people who will
be terribly inconvenienced by discovering that they were breaking a law
that they did not know existed will presumably be people traffickers.
Inconveniencing them should be fairly low on any sensible
persons list of priorities.
I find the Ministers
explanation extraordinary. Nevertheless, I have no wish to jeopardise
the prosecution of such people, so I accept the Ministers
advice.
Damian
Green:
I find it extremely unlikely that prosecutions
could be jeopardised, but I have to take what the Minister says in good
faith. I have no doubt that the best legal brains in his Department
have advised him that it could put prosecutions in jeopardy. I have no
wish to do that. With deep and extreme reluctance, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 21 March 2007 |