Mr.
Woolas: It was the word “bloke”—I
meant my right hon.
Friend.
Damian
Green: I see. The right hon. Gentleman, the new Home
Secretary, is indeed a decent human being. I think we can all agree on
that. I hope that that nomenclature suffices both for Hansard
and, perhaps more importantly, for the Home
Secretary. I
also agree with the Minister in not wishing to foist on my hon. Friend,
the shadow Home Secretary, should he become Home Secretary at some time
in the future, the job of director of border revenue. That seems
extremely sensible. As the Minister said, the amendment has achieved
what I wished it to achieve—it has teased out a certain amount
of clarity on the purpose of the role and whether it is necessarily
that of the chief executive of UKBA. I am glad that the Minister and
his briefing recognise that there may well be changes to come in the
organisation of the institutions responsible for border
control.
In that spirit
of cross-party good will, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
6 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
7Customs
revenue functions of the
Director Amendment
made: 22, in
clause 7, page 6, line 21, leave
out from ‘means’ to end of line 22 and insert
‘— (a) a function that is
exercisable— (i) by the
Director by virtue of this section,
or (ii) by customs revenue
officials by virtue of section
11, (b) a function that is
conferred on customs revenue officials or the Director by or by virtue
of any of sections 22 to 24 (investigations and detention),
or (c) a function under
Community law that is exercisable by the Director or customs revenue
officials in relation to a customs revenue
matter.’.—(Mr.
Woolas.) This amendment is similar
to amendment 19, making provision in respect of the meaning of
“customs revenue functions” which may be exercised by the
Director of Border Revenue and customs revenue
officials. Clause
7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
8 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Damian
Green: On a point of order, Sir
Nicholas.
The
Chairman: I have no idea what it might be, but I am happy
to take
it.
Damian
Green: I sensed from movement that the Minister was about
to move a clause stand part motion for clause 8. I simply wished to
establish if that were the case—there are many clauses in the
Bill for which neither we nor the Government have tabled an amendment.
In that circumstance, is it still possible to have clause stand part
debates?
The
Chairman: To the very experienced Member of this House,
the Member for Ashford, I say that there is always the possibility of
having a clause stand part debate. I would say to members of the
Committee that if they wish to have a clause stand part debate then
they should rise to their feet in a very positive way, so that the
Chairman may appreciate that they wish to contribute. There was no more
than a quiver from the Minister. He did not rise to his feet, and
therefore I continued to put the question that that particular clause
stand part of the Bill. I give the very positive reassurance to the
hon. Member for Ashford that if anyone wishes to have a clause stand
part debate then I am not prepared to stand against them—it is
my duty to call them, so that there may be a clause stand part
debate.
Clause
9Delegation
of Director’s
functions
Damian
Green: I beg to move amendment 7, in
clause 9, page 6, line 37, leave
out ‘make arrangements to delegate’ and insert
‘designate by approval of the
Secretary of
State’. I
rise very positively to my feet to move this amendment, Sir
Nicholas.
The purpose of
the amendment is to make a subtle change. The Minister has already
referred to the Carltona principle—it is a good party game to
play at the Committee stage of any Bill to see how far you can get
through before somebody mentions the Carltona principle. Those of us
who do these things regularly can remember from year to year what it
is, but I suspect that if we conducted a quiz among Members, many of
them would not necessarily know what the Carltona principle is. It
dates back to 1943—I see that I am causing puzzlement. I have a
briefing that shows
that: “The
case most often cited is Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works
1943.” It
is an important and sensible principle. It strikes me as bizarre that
the ability to transfer powers to an official from a Secretary of State
had not been firmly established before 1943—there had been
Government Departments for more than a century before then. We might go
a long way off-piste musing on, first, the relationship between
Ministers and their officials in earlier times and, secondly, the
efficacy of Government when there were fewer of either Ministers or
officials and this country ran half the globe. I am getting slightly
off the subject
here. Let
me move back to the powers held by the director of border revenue and
the possibility of their transference to another official. That is
slightly different from the straightforward transfer of powers from the
Secretary of State to other officials. Clause 9 refers to the director
of border revenue delegating powers. This amendment seeks to allow that
to happen—it is entirely sensible and unremarkable that that
should happen—but only with the approval of the Secretary of
State. It is limiting the power of the director of border revenue to
delegate functions to those conferred by the Bill. The purpose of this
is not particularly to modify the powers of the director, but to probe
the other functions it is intended to confer on the director. We have
had one helpful debate about the role of the director vis-Ã -vis
other parts of the immigration system, but this would be an appropriate
point in the passage of the Bill to explore the full range of the
director’s powers. It is perfectly reasonable to be wary of
giving powers to an official if we are not sure of the full raft of
powers that that official will
have. 12.30
pm It
is convenient to have reached this debate, in which we seek to insert
the Secretary of State into the process to ensure that we are not
giving too much power to an official when in some cases it would be
better exercised by the political leadership, so that there is some
kind of democratic accountability to this place in the powers of the
director of border
revenue. Although
this small amendment deals with only one aspect of the
director’s powers, I hope that the Minister will take it as an
invitation to spread a bit more widely and explain to us the full range
of the director’s powers as well, obviously, as the important
point about why the Secretary of State should not have some say when
powers are delegated further down the
organisation.
Mr.
Woolas: I rise positively, Sir Nicholas, and not with a
quiver to reply to this debate. It is the responsibility of the
Minister to put on the record for the Committee and for Hansard,
where it is necessary, the intent of the clause. I draw the
Committee’s attention to the fact that
my noble Friend was able to do so for clause 8 in the other place.
Therefore, that explains my quiver. I was trying to be helpful but it
was not necessary because of
that. Let
me address directly the delegation of the director’s functions
to officials, which clause 9 enables. This practice allows operational
flexibility and is necessary. It is already the case with officials in
their relationship with the commissioners. Of course, in practice, most
of the functions of the director are undertaken by officials under the
designation arrangements set out in clause 11. Only
designated officials will be able to exercise the front-line
enforcement powers currently relied on by officers of Her
Majesty’s Revenue and Customs at the border to tackle smuggling.
Those powers are not exercisable by the director and are therefore
subject to the delegation
power. The
amendment would remove the power to delegate and replace it with a
power to designate a function with the approval of the Secretary of
State. It seems likely—the hon. Member for Ashford has confirmed
this—that the amendment is intended to make the delegation of
functions by the director subject to approval by the Secretary of
State, or at least to restrict delegation of functions to those who are
designated by the Secretary of State. That would be inappropriate and
unnecessary. Let me quickly explain
why. In
exercising revenue functions, the director of border revenue is not
subject to the direction of the Home Secretary. The director acts
independently but, like HMRC, is subject to the general directions of
the Treasury. The director’s functions will be exercisable by
designated customs and revenue officials under clause 11, as
I said, but it is right that the director should also be able to
delegate her functions to others, including those in the UK Border
Agency. At
the same time, clause 9 provides some fundamental safeguards. The
director must monitor the exercise of any delegated function and the
person exercising such functions must comply with their direction. In
that context, if there were a need to oversee the director’s
exercise of the power to delegate, that role would fall to the
Treasury, not the Secretary of
State.
Damian
Green: I quite take the Minister’s point that the
amendment might be defective in that respect. Is he saying that it
would be less defective had we inserted “the Chancellor of the
Exchequer” rather than “the Secretary of State”? I
dare say he would still have opposed
it.
Mr.
Woolas: Had I risen positively and not with a quiver, I
would already have answered that question—sort of. In the
revenue functions, the director of border revenue is accountable to the
policies of the commissioners, who act on the policy of the Chancellor.
The Budget is traditionally the device by which that policy is set in
this country. In that regard, the answer is indirectly yes. That
explains why the Minister for Borders and Immigration is also a
Treasury Minister for the purposes of customs and revenue. I would
probably have been advised to resist the amendment in any event, but I
would have done so very
gently.
Damian
Green: I am delighted that we have teased out not just why
the Minister opposes the amendment, but the degree of gentleness with
which he wishes to
treat it. His explanation is perfectly reasonable so I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendment
made: 23, in
clause 9, page 6, line 38, leave
out from ‘Director’ to end of line
39.—(Mr.
Woolas.) This
amendment is consequent on amendment
22. Clause
9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
10Compliance
with directions
etc. Amendment
made: 24, in
clause 10, page 7, line 8, leave
out ‘functions in relation to customs revenue matters’
and insert ‘customs revenue
functions’.—(Mr.
Woolas.) This
amendment is consequent on amendment
22. Clause
10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
13Directions by the
Director Amendment
made: 25, in
clause 13, page 9, line 3, leave
out from ‘of’ to end of line 4 and insert ‘customs
revenue functions.’.—(Mr.
Woolas.) This
amendment is consequent on amendment
22. Clause
13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
14Use
and Disclosure of customs
information
Damian
Green: I beg to move amendment 9, in
clause 14, page 10, line 7, at
end add— ‘(8) Nothing in
this Act shall enable any of the officers designated under this Part to
use any personal data of UK citizens to restrict their right to enter
or leave the United Kingdom for legitimate
purposes.’. We
now come to a more contentious part of the Bill dealing with the use
and disclosure of information. The Minister will be aware that this
matter is extremely fraught. Conservative Members think that it is
hugely important and that far too much of the relevant Home Office
policy is proceeding in the wrong direction, with a dangerous tendency
to collect too much information and to give the various organs of the
state too much power to share it with one another without the
permission of the person about whom the information was collected.
Through amendment 9 and, even more so, amendments 10 to 12,
we seek either to probe or change Government
policy. It
is arresting to think that an amendment need be tabled to a Bill to
prevent legislation from being used to bar British citizens from
entering or leaving their own country for legitimate purposes, but we
seek to do just that. Essentially, our worry is that the powers taken
by the Government in this clause might allow them to do precisely that.
The Bill does not make clear how UKBA intends to use the data collected
from this function in conjunction with the e-Borders function, which is
also being introduced. I would be interested to hear what the
Minister has to say about databases and information sharing. He will be
aware how much information will be available through the e-Borders
system and the customs information being collected under clause 14,
which will provide the Government with more information that presumably
will be recorded. This is a classic example of where two sets of
information collected perfectly properly might be combined and then
used improperly. It would be
helpful to the Committee if the Minister could set out the extent of
the information that could be brought together partly under the aegis
of clause 14. As well as the provisions in the Bill, the e-Borders
database can track and store international travel records, names,
addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries
and, potentially, credit card details. I am sure that the Minister will
be proud to tell us that, when it is fully up and running, the system
will monitor all 250 million journeys made in and out of
this country each year. He will be aware that the Government propose,
rather controversially, to store the data for up to 10 years. We think
that that is excessive and that some of the data being collected will
be ineffective in tackling cross-border crime and hugely intrusive for
the entirely innocent. It will also be massively expensive.
It is even
more toxic, however, to combine that with the use and disclosure of
customs information under clause 14, because huge questions remain to
be answered—on top of those about e-Borders—about the
intersection of these different systems. The intrusion of privacy of
anyone, even the most innocent British traveller crossing their own
borders, is going up and up. The amount of information that will be
collected and stored for many years by the Government goes up with
every piece of legislation. It is not the appropriate time or place to
debate the e-Borders system—the Minister knows that we think
other countries have implemented similar but better systems in far
shorter periods.
12.45
pm
| 
