 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Gosia McBride,
Chris Shaw, Committee
Clerks † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 9 June 2009(Morning) [Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]10.30
am
The
Chairman: I welcome hon. Members on both sides to the
first sitting of this Public Bill Committee. Before we begin, I have
some preliminary announcements. I am ever conscious of the comfort of
Members, and if it gets a little warmer and they wish to take off their
jackets, I am happy that they should do so. Again, and I say this with
considerable emphasis, please would Members ensure that mobile phones,
pagers and other electronic gadgets are switched to silent mode or
preferably turned off during
Committee. I
advise Members that there is a money resolution and a Ways and Means
resolution in connection with the Bill and copies are available in the
room. Adequate notice of amendments should be given and, as a general
rule, I and my fellow Chairman, Anne Begg, do not intend to call
starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an
afternoon sitting. The Committee will first be asked to consider the
programme motion, which is on the amendment paper, for which debate is
limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report
written evidence, which I hope we can take formally. My first task,
which is a pleasure, is to call the Minister to move the programme
motion. I understand that he is to take this Bill through on his own,
and we all wish him well in that heavy responsibility.
That— (1)
the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at
10.30 am on Tuesday 9 June)
meet— (a)
at 4.00 pm on Tuesday 9
June; (b)
at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 11
June; (c)
at 10.30 am and 4.30 pm on Tuesday 16
June; (d)
at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 18
June; (2)
the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought
to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 18
June. Thank
you, Sir Nicholas. May I say what a genuine pleasure it is to serve
once again under your chairmanship? You are a strong but fair Chairman
and I look forward to the Committee. We had a Programming
Sub-Committee, in which the Opposition made clear their principled
objection to programming. We have not put knives in the debate; we have
an end time. The usual channels have a good agreement, so I will not
delay the Committee any further.
Damian
Green (Ashford) (Con): It is, as ever, life-enhancing to
serve under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas. I know that you would not
wish to accuse me of crawling to the Chair at this early stage of the
proceedings. I reiterate our objection in principle to the routine,
indeed universal, use of programming. It is particularly inappropriate
with this Bill, as will be illustrated. The
usual channels have operated well and we have all accepted a suitable
programme for progress over the sittings allocated. Given that it is
considerably smaller than the draft Bill that the Government put
forward a few months ago, it should not and need not be particularly
difficult. Many of the more contentious elements and, regrettably, many
of the better elements have been taken out. During our proceedings we
will attempt to re-insert parts of the draft Bill, which is what some
of our amendments try to do. Given that those were originally
Government proposals, we look forward to the support of Government
Members. A
raft of Government amendments have been tabled already, and I wait with
eager anticipation for further amendments to give effect to some of the
measures that the former Home Secretary told us about on Second
Reading, including a points-based system for citizenship and a cap on
the number of people allowed to apply for
it.
Damian
Green: That is what she told us. I am genuinely interested
to know whether those policies have survived the change of Home
Secretary last week and whether the appropriate amendments on
citizenship will be tabled, as would be entirely proper. Will we have
the opportunity to discuss, if not during Committee, on Report, the
very interesting ideas that the former Home Secretary put before the
House on Second Reading? As I said, however, we have an in-principle
objection to these proceedings, but not to the programming
motion. Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): I echo
colleagues’ comments: it is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Sir Nicholas. Regardless of whether we have objections,
in principle, to programming, we support the timetable for this
Committee stage. We considered the need for more sittings, but felt
that, given that Second Reading did not quite go the full course, the
agreed number of sittings might be sufficient to deal with the points
that we seek to address. To echo points made, it is disappointing that
this Bill does not cover some aspects of borders, citizenship and
immigration matters, such as the Government’s call for the
simplification of legislation—I am not convinced that the Bill
represents a simplification. Neither does it address a major area of
concern about, for example, the destitution of refused asylum seekers
who cannot be returned to places such as Zimbabwe. That could, and
should, have been addressed, but regrettably was not.
With those
few comments, however, the Liberal Democrats are happy with the
timetable for the Bill, which we hope to investigate and probe further
over the next couple of
weeks. Question
put and agreed
to. Ordered, That,
subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence
received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for
publication.—(Mr.
Woolas.)
The
Chairman: I advise hon. Members that copies of any
memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the
Committee Room.
Clause 1General
customs functions of the Secretary of
State
Mr.
Woolas: I beg to move amendment 18, in
clause 1, page 2, line 17, after
‘section’ insert ‘(other than in subsection
(8))’. This
amendment is consequent on amendment
19.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendments 19 to
26. Amendment
15, in
clause 26, page 20, line 8, leave
out from ‘State’ to end of line and insert ‘or the
Director’. Government
amendment
29.
Mr.
Woolas: I beg your forgiveness, Sir Nicholas, because I
would like to put the amendments in the context of the
clause.
The
Chairman: I am most grateful to the Minister for having
discussed this matter with me already. I am very happy for the mover of
an amendment—in this case, the Minister—on occasion to
explain the purpose of the relevant clause. That might remove the
necessity of a clause stand part debate, which may often go over
matters that have already been discussed. If it allows for proper
scrutiny, I am happy for the clause to be described in general at the
beginning of a group of
amendments.
The
Committee will be aware that the clause is a key component of part 1 of
the Bill. Part 1 runs from clause 1 to clause 38 and deals
with the UK Border Agency. In essence, it proposes that we put on a
statutory footing the merger of the customs functions taken from Her
Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the immigration functions
taken from the Border and Immigration Agency, previously known as the
immigration and nationality
directorate. Clause
1 relates to the general customs functions of the Secretary of State.
Bringing the functions together will increase the UK Border
Agency’s effectiveness in tackling smuggling, illegal
immigration and other cross-border crime. Providing more flexibility
and powers for the deployment of officers in tackling those threats at
the border will enhance border security and therefore the protection of
our
country. The
clause will give the Secretary of State the power to exercise general
customs functions concurrently with the commissioners for Revenue And
Customs. The clause specifically prevents the Secretary of State from
exercising any of the commissioners’ revenue functions or any of
their non-revenue functions that are not relevant to the UK Border
Agency’s role, such as their work inland regulating bureaux de
change and other money businesses. There is a transfer of powers from
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I think that the Committee
will be satisfied that the Bill contains the necessary safeguards,
which are there already for Revenue and
Customs. I
will explain the derivation and impact of the amendments before us. The
Bill has been subject to significant scrutiny. I am a big fan of
pre-legislative scrutiny—and, for the record, post-legislative
scrutiny.
The House would be wise to do more of that. The hon. Member for Ashford
has mentioned the draft Bill. The short Bill before us is not the
complete jigsaw puzzle. The draft Bill that has been scrutinised in
part by the Select Committee will be brought back to the House with
proposals. The Bill we are considering is a Lords Bill. It started in
the Lords and has been scrutinised
there.
Damian
Green: I apologise for interrupting the Minister when he
is only just getting into his flow. When he says that the draft Bill is
coming back, does he mean that the simplification Bill in the next
Session will include everything in the draft
Bill? 10.45
am
Mr.
Woolas: Yes. The draft Bill will come back as the
simplification Bill. That is an attempt to have a comprehensive
Bill. True
to our word, we have listened to the other place. The Government
amendments will refine the clause in response to the noble
Lords’ debate and some of their suggestions. Never let it be
said that the Government are inflexible in the face of good scrutiny.
What is perhaps confusing for hon. Members is that some of the
amendments do not relate to clause 1. However, it was wise to put them
together.
Let me
explain the purpose of these amendments. I advise the Committee to
resist amendment 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford, who will no
doubt explain his proposition. The purpose of my amendments is to
clarify the extent of the customs functions that may be exercised by,
first, the Secretary of State, and secondly, the director of border
revenue—we will debate who that should be in further clauses and
amendments—as well as designated customs officials.
Specifically, the Government amendments make clear that these functions
include customs functions under European Community law. The amendments
follow scrutiny in the other place and we believe they are necessary to
ensure that the remit of the UK Border Agency, in respect of the
exercise of its new customs functions, is clear and that adjustments
can be made to exclude or include particular functions as appropriate
from the definition of general customs functions.
This is
necessary for two reasons. First, clause 1 enables the Secretary of
State to exercise the functions of the commissioners for Revenue and
Customs concurrently with them in relation to general customs matters.
The term “general customs matters” may draw in certain
functions already exercisable by the Secretary of State and there is,
therefore, a need to ensure that other provisions in the Bill, such as
the information provisions covered in clauses 14 to 20, apply only to
the functions of the commissioners which the Secretary of State will be
able to exercise under the Bill. Secondly, it is necessary to ensure
that the information clauses apply to customs functions exercisable
directly under Community law. Specifically, amendments 18 and 19 amend
the meaning for the purposes of part 1 of the Bill of “general
customs functions”. They clarify the extent of these exercisable
by the Secretary of State and the general customs officials. The effect
of the amendment is to make clear that the relevant customs functions
are, first, those that are exercisable by virtue of clause 1 and clause
3; secondly, those that are conferred on either the
Secretary of State or general customs officials by virtue of clauses 22
to 24; and thirdly, those under Community law. The amendment also
ensures that the information clauses in the Bill apply to all of these
functions. Amendment
20, the third one in the group, is related and consequential to
amendments 18 and 19.
Amendment 21
is similarly consequential to amendments 18 and 19 and
adjusts, confusingly, perhaps, Sir Nicholas, if you are still with
me—
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 10 June 2009 |