Tom
Brake: I have some sympathy with the hon.
Gentleman’s proposal, but if it an annual report, will that not
be published after the horse has bolted? Therefore, all his concerns
will remain because it will simply be a case of logging what has
already
happened.
Damian
Green: To some extent, that is a perfectly fair point.
This is not perfect. Perfection would be to give Parliament the ability
to scrutinise publicly and in debate every order that is made. I think
we all know that, in practical terms, that is not going to
happen.
Where I
disagree with the hon. Gentleman is that even if it is a case of
looking at things after they have happened, the fact that Ministers
will have to make this annual report—and they know that they
will have to do so—will act as a brake on them and make them
think, “Do I want to write this into the annual report that I
know I will have to produce on these matters? Will this look
acceptable?” The use of deterrents is an important weapon for
Parliament to
have. Again,
I am sure that all parties would agree that it is dangerous to allow
Ministers almost unfettered power, but that is one of the possible
effects of the system that we have. It is sensible for this House to
seek to insert itself into that process and to be able to do its proper
job. Clause 2 (2)(b) in particular gives Ministers extremely wide
powers. Any sensible Minister would welcome the possibility of having
some sort of oversight because, of course, one of the long-term effects
of effective oversight is that Ministers can often be saved from
themselves. The prospect of being scrutinised would give rise to
further ministerial self-censorship, and prevent foolish things being
done. This is a modest proposal, which I hope the Minister will welcome
for his own sake as much as anyone
else’s.
Mr.
Woolas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s intent.
It is important to clarify Parliament’s intent because otherwise
it is left to courts and tribunals to do so, but let me reassure
him.
The clause
and the explanatory notes describe the powers being transferred, which
can be used only by affirmative order of the House. Therefore, the
purpose of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment—that Ministers
would have to justify such use—is already met. My argument
against the annual report is not that it is not desirable for
accountability—he is absolutely right that the existence of such
a report would get the Minister to consider that—but that that
is already the case because of the affirmative resolution requirement.
With that reassurance, I hope that he will not press his
amendment.
Damian
Green: I am grateful for the Minister’s words. In
the spirit of good will, I shall accept his reassurance and beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
3Designation
of general customs
officials
Damian
Green: I beg to move amendment 3, in
clause 3, page 3, line 20, leave
out from ‘officer’ to end of line
21.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 4, in
clause 3, page 3, line 28, leave
out subsection
(3).
Damian
Green: We may be in danger of going over ground that we
have already trodden on, but it cannot be trodden on too often. These
two amendments deal with the importance of training those who exercise
powers. The clause deals with the designation of general customs
officials, and we seek to ensure that only properly trained immigration
officers may be designated as general customs officials. There were
good debates about this in the other place.
The Minister
has told us in detail what powers there are and what training is given,
and that has been helpful, but it is relevant to consider the wider
point that we need a consistent approach at our borders, including
various ports and airports. In that context, the hon. Member for
Midlothian’s intervention was very good. Even before we get to
the debate about the border police, we are anxious that there should be
proper training, so that we can be confident that the people who
exercise powers do so well. We also want the powers to be exercised
consistently at all places. A consideration that is always uppermost in
our mind is the opportunity for immigration and customs crimes to be
committed relatively easily at some smaller ports and airports, which
inevitably do not have the permanent infrastructure of those at
Heathrow, Dover, Harwich and the big airports in Scotland to which he
referred. In seeking to assure ourselves that there is adequate
training, we are conscious that we want the job to become perhaps
slightly more difficult in future because we will need a more mobile
force than we have at
present.
We will need
part of the Border Agency or the border police, whichever institution
is actually carrying out those important functions. We will want people
who are not just sitting in one place, but are able to get out and plug
the loopholes that we all know are there and, more dangerously, that
some of the world’s international criminals know are there. I
dare say that I am telling the Minister nothing he does not already
know, because I am sure that he is as concerned as I am about the
possible use of small ports and airports for smuggling and immigration
crime.
11.45
am I
would like to put to the Minister one of the points made in another
place by my noble Friend Lady Hanham, who, when discussing the
provision allowing powers to be given to “any other
official” of the Secretary of State, asked what kind of
considerations would be used in such cases, because an extremely wide
power is being slipped through in the clause. Having the ability simply
to add the function of customs official to any official of the
Secretary of State makes one’s eyebrows rise. In practice, we
all know, or at least hope, that Ministers
and the senior management of the agency would seek to add those
functions only for appropriate officials, but a degree of reassurance
from the Minister would be helpful at this stage in our
scrutiny. The
Minister has already said that 4,500 Revenue and Customs officers are
being transferred and will no longer be officers of HMRC, and that part
of the clause’s purpose is to redesignate them so that they can
continue to exercise the customs functions they currently carry out in
addition to the immigration functions he is seeking to add. We have
heard about the training of immigration officers, so it would be useful
to have detail about the training of the customs officers as well. In
another place the Minister’s noble Friend Lord West said that he
did not believe it was necessary to appoint those who transfer from
HMRC as immigration officers first. I hope that the Minster will expand
on why the Government believe that that is unnecessary, because it
would clearly act as some kind of check.
While we are
discussing the amendment, this would be an appropriate time for the
Minister to give us an update on the progress of the merger of the
organisations, because he will be more aware than I am that HMRC and
UKBA are two very separate organisations with different cultures that
he is trying to bring together. One hears of stresses and strains,
which is not surprising and is entirely normal, but certainly those
stresses and strains are there. While we are passing the legislation
that will make permanent that merger and put it on a statutory footing,
it would be instructive for the Committee to know what is happening on
the ground. Are those different groups of people, with their different
training, backgrounds and organisational cultures, actually working
together smoothly, or could that be best described as a work in
progress? Many key practical issues are brought up by these apparently
minor amendments, so I hope that the Minister can reassure the
Committee that all proper things are being done to ensure that the
borders are being made more secure on the
ground.
Tom
Brake: I rise not to go over the ground that has been
covered in relation to training aspects but to pick up on a point that
I am sure the Minister has been lobbied about by the Public and
Commercial Services Union. What is the definition of an official of the
Secretary of State? Clearly, the PCSU has concerns that an official
could include, for instance, a contractor working for the Secretary of
State. It might be helpful for Members if the Minister clarified
whether the word “official” could include private
contractors recruited by the Government to work within that
department.
Mr.
Woolas: On the last point, the answer is no. The officials
who can be designated are customs and immigration officials. I hope
that reassures the hon.
Gentleman. On
the process of designating, clause 3, amended or otherwise, will allow
the Home Secretary to designate as general customs officials
immigration officers, former HMRC officers transferred to the Home
Office under the provisions of the Bill and any other of his officials.
As I mentioned during the debate on clause 1, they will have the same
functions and powers in relation to general customs matters as an
officer of HMRC. They will also carry out the Secretary of
State’s general customs function. The purpose is to allow
front-line officials of the Border Agency the powers necessary to
exercise both customs and immigration functions. As I have said, we
believe that that will enhance our capacity in the national
interest. Subsection
3 makes it clear that the Carltona principle, in accordance with which
the Secretary of State’s functions may be exercised by any of
his officials, is preserved. It is the principle whereby powers of the
Secretary of State that are delegated are deemed to be powers. On the
specific point about the amendment, because general customs officials
will have the same functions and powers in relation to general customs
matters as an officer of HMRC would have, and may also carry out the
Secretary of State’s general customs functions, by virtue of the
provisions in the Bill, some 4,500 officers—the hon. Member for
Ashford is right about that figure—of HMRC will be transferred
to the UK Border Agency in August, subject to the will of Parliament
and the discussion of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman teased me about a
simplification Bill. One reason why we introduced this small Bill is
that we need statutory powers to put things on a proper footing. At the
moment, we are in a halfway house. On progress in the other direction,
we are bringing together the two bodies under a joint management
structure. To date, about 2,000 immigration officers have been trained
in customs matters as we increase capacity.
To finish my
point about the amendments, limiting the designation of general customs
officials to immigration officers would mean that all customs officers
transferring would first have to be appointed as immigration officers
so that they could then be appointed as general customs officers in
order to get on with their customs work. I accept that the hon.
Gentleman seeks clarification on how that will work, but I hope he
accepts that if we did what the amendment proposes, we would add to the
bureaucracy. Amendment
3 could prevent the Secretary of State from designating former HMRC
officers as general customs officers immediately on transfer to UKBA,
which would obviously limit their ability to carry out their functions,
and it would require the Secretary of State to appoint all such
officials as immigration officers even where they did not have the
training to exercise immigration functions, or indeed the need to
exercise immigration functions in regard to larger ports.
On Amendment
4, subsection (3) of the clause makes it clear that, notwithstanding
the exercise of the Secretary of State’s general customs
functions by general customs officials, the Carltona principle applies.
I hope the Committee will appreciate the importance of that. The
Secretary of State’s functions may be exercised by any of his
officials and subsection (3) ensures that this important principle is
preserved in respect of all the Secretary of State’s
functions.
In light of
that explanation, I hope that the Committee will accept the good sense
of what I am
proposing.
Damian
Green: I certainly accept the Minister’s good
intentions. I observe that he did not respond to my invitation to tell
us how things are going on the ground. I take silence to indicate a
lack of profound happiness with the progress of the merger so
far.
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman should take it as fear of the
Chairman’s wrath rather than anything to do with the
implementation of the merger.
Damian
Green: I am sure we all live in permanent fear of the
Chairman’s wrath. Nevertheless, as the Minister knows, this
provision is one of the more difficult parts of the exercise and
although we can sit here and pass legislation and discuss it in great
detail, it is perhaps a lesson for all of us that the lives of real
people are being affected by it so we should be concerned about the
efficacy with which they are doing their
jobs.
Tom
Brake: We may require the indulgence of the Chairman for a
couple of seconds, but the hon. Member for Ashford would probably agree
that given that we all support the integration of these different
powers, it would be appropriate for the Minister to highlight now
whether there are significant personnel issues, because that could
damage the project in its
entirety.
Damian
Green: That is a legitimate point. As the Minister has
already observed, this is not an issue on which there is any dividing
principle. We all agree that the mutual use of powers among those who
come from different organisations historically will improve the safety
and security of our borders, but the transitional phase will be
difficult. If it is proving more difficult than we thought, the
Committee should be made aware of that. It would be—or would
have been, if the moment has passed—appropriate therefore for
the Minister to do that. All we can do under your iron rule, Sir
Nicholas, is to observe that we have had no particular reassurances
about that.
I do not
propose to press the amendments to a vote, but I hope that at the
forefront of Ministers’ minds is our continuing concern that the
exercising of great powers by officers of the state should always be
accompanied by very strict training regimes and permanent observation,
and that we are not giving inappropriate powers to people who may not
have the skills and sensitivity to use them. There is a very serious
underlying principle: it is relatively easy for Ministers to say
“My job is to increase security in this area and therefore I
will take whatever measures need to be taken to do that.” That
always needs to be balanced against the appropriate use of those powers
by the appropriate
people. 12
noon The
purpose of the amendments was to flag up that that important balance
should always be there, not only in the mind of the Minister, but if
possible, in the Bill. Although individual Ministers may have good
intent, Ministers come and go, and future Governments may not operate
under the same constraints. It is thus extremely important that the
Bill contains all the safeguards that are needed. None the less, having
said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
