Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]

---

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: † Miss Anne Begg, Mr. Roger Gale, Sir Nicholas Winterton

† Anderson, Mr. David (Blaydon) (Lab)

† Blunt, Mr. Crispin (Reigate) (Con)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)

† Burns, Mr. Simon (West Chelmsford) (Con)

† Green, Damian (Ashford) (Con)

† Gwynne, Andrew (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)

† Hamilton, Mr. David (Midlothian) (Lab)

† Holloway, Mr. Adam (Gravesham) (Con)

† McCabe, Steve (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol, East) (Lab)

† McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)

† Prosser, Gwyn (Dover) (Lab)

† Rowen, Paul (Rochdale) (LD)

† Walker, Mr. Charles (Broxbourne) (Con)

† Wilson, Phil (Sedgefield) (Lab)

† Woolas, Mr. Phil (Minister for Borders and Immigration)

Gosia McBride, Chris Shaw, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Column number: 71

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 11 June 2009

(Morning)

[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]

9 am

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Payment of revenue to the Commissioners

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): I welcome all members of the Committee who have managed to get here this morning. Is the Government Whip concerned about the numbers behind him?

The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Steve McCabe): I can talk all day.

Mr. Blunt: I am glad to hear that.

One of the things that make the Minister such an attractive personality in our politics is his ability to explain things in simple, straightforward, layman terms when they might otherwise be presented in the complicated language beloved of bureaucrats and legislators. It is on such a matter that I would like him to assist us on clause 32. I am not entirely sure what the clause proposes, and why it does so, so I have a few questions. It is a sensible principle that a Committee should have a collective idea of what legislation involves before it is passed.

First, what is drawback? Secondly, clause 32(4) provides for commissioners to make payments to the director or the Secretary of State, while the main provision of the clause is to arrange for the director of border revenue to pay money to the commissioners. Under what circumstances is it anticipated that the commissioners will have to start making payments to the director or the Secretary of State? Thirdly, why is there a requirement for subsection (5), which states that subsection (4) applies

“whether or not the reason for a deficiency is or may be that an amount has been paid or retained on the basis of an estimate that has proved or may prove to be inaccurate”?

I do not understand why such clarification is needed, so I would be grateful for an explanation. Finally, when is a payment to be treated as a repayment?

The Minister for Borders and Immigration (Mr. Phil Woolas): Good morning, Miss Begg. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words; I shall take them as a compliment, even if they were not intended as such. The answer to his questions is the all-powerful Treasury, and I will explain why. Clause 32 deals with

Column number: 72

the payment of revenue to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs commissioners, and sets out provisions on the accounting of revenue collected by our officials in the UK Border Agency. That revenue includes duties and taxes that may be paid on goods by passengers who go through the red channel at an airport, a ferry terminal and so on. The second issue is the post. A significant amount of excise and duties work is carried out on goods that come through the post, most of which are legal, although some are not.

The clause requires the director of border revenue—the chief executive of UKBA—and the Secretary of State to pay any money by way of revenue, or security for revenue, to HMRC in accordance with Treasury directions. In other words, it is the Treasury’s money, not mine—I just collect it. The intention is that moneys will be paid directly into HMRC bank accounts, as now, so we are the agent passing the money on. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to pick out subsections (4) and (5).

The clause also provides for HMRC to make funds available to ukba if we need to pay any money back. A ship or a container may drop some of its goods in the UK and then move on. We may charge duty on all of it, but the company will then point out what the manifest shows. There are occasions when we need to pay money back, so the provision authorises HMRC to give us money to do so. It is anticipated that the repayments will be made directly by HMRC, but there might be occasions where it needs to come through us.

Revenue is defined in the clause as including all duties and taxes. It also includes penalties. Your constituents, Miss Begg, might have had their cars impounded at Dover or at other ferry ports, but they are clearly very honest. Some of mine might have come a cropper in that regard and paid penalties. The clause covers those amounts and also the proceeds of forfeiture. If someone has brought something into the country on which they have not paid duty and there is forfeiture, there is revenue from that. The clause is designed to oil the wheels. The reason, to answer the hon. Gentleman directly, is that the Treasury holds the purse strings.

Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister assist us on some of the detailed questions about drawback? Why does subsection (5) need to be included? I think I have understood what the repayments will be, but I do not entirely understand why a payment can be treated as repayment, under subsection (7)(b)(ii).

Mr. Woolas: I apologise. I did not answer the question about drawback. Drawback is described as a method for repaying excise duty on goods that have not been, and will not be, consumed in the United Kingdom—the goods coming in and going out. Subsection (5) provides that subsection (4) will apply whether or not the reason for the deficiency is, or might be, that an amount has been paid or retained on the basis of an estimate that has proved, or might prove, to be inaccurate. Again, if it is estimated from a ship’s manifest that four containers have been dropped off at Harwich and it turns out that it was only three because the order was changed, the clause allows us to reflect that. I am advised that the clause mirrors provisions in the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. If it were not included, it could be argued that we could not cover such a deficiency. I hope that I have provided the explanation that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Column number: 73

Mr. Blunt: When is a payment a repayment?

Mr. Woolas: A company might have made a payment to us in lieu of any excise or duty, but the way in which accounts work over a passage of time means that we can identify how much duty was required only retrospectively. The company may bring in a tonne of goods every month, but that is on average over the year—it could be two tonnes in January and half a tonne in February. The repayment in that regard is the refund for the company that paid the duty. I hope that I have explained the situation in clear English—I think that I have.

Mr. Blunt: I am extremely grateful for the Minister’s explanation. He has entirely justified the encomium I gave him at the beginning of my remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Power to require payment into the Consolidated Fund

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Blunt: I have a question about clause 33, although I was so overwhelmed by the Minister’s ability to turn these matters into English that I nearly missed the opportunity to ask it.

Subsection (2) states:

“An order under this section may amend or repeal section 32”.

It looks as though the Government intend to move to the scheme set out in clause 33, rather than that in clause 32, which looks to be a temporary arrangement. Will the Minister enlighten the Committee on whether that is the Government’s intention and give a sense of the time scale in which it might be achieved?

Mr. Woolas: The short answer is to do with the all-powerful Treasury. The power to require payment into the Consolidated Fund set out in clause 33 provides the flexibility needed to meet any future changes in the revenue accounting arrangements set out in clause 32, which provides for revenue collected by the UK Border Agency to be paid to HMRC. In that sense, there is no timetable.

Should circumstances change, clause 33 will enable the Treasury to require the Secretary of State and the director of border revenue to pay the revenue they collect into the Consolidated Fund. That might be necessary if there is a change in the accounting arrangements by HMRC and/or the UK Border Agency, or if there is a significant improvement in the amount of revenue we collect. We are currently responsible for 5 per cent. of Treasury take through tax and duty. That will change significantly, for example when the Government’s successful economic policy increases trade with the rest of the world. It would also change if, God forbid, with the advent of a Conservative Government, our manufacturing suffered such a collapse that we had to import everything, because duties would then go up.

Column number: 74

I will now stop trying to buy time with hypothetical circumstances and read this note. This clause allows flexibility should the amount of revenue change. It mirrors the arrangements in the Revenue and Customs laws; there is nothing new about it. It is there just in case, rather than just in time.

Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): May I clear up a procedural point? The Minister is one of the Treasury’s representatives on Earth—I understand that he is a Treasury Minister as well as a Home Office Minister. He says that this is to do with the all-powerful Treasury. Presuming the Bill becomes law, does that mean that one Home Office Minister must necessarily also be a Treasury Minister? Is that a permanent feature of the arrangements that link HMRC and ukba?

Mr. Woolas: That is not something of which I remind the Home Secretary often, but it is helpful. The answer is yes, because the director of border revenue, who is the chief executive of ukba, is equivalent to a commissioner for Revenue and Customs in being the accounting officer who is responsible for revenue. The Minister with responsibility for Customs will shadow and oversee the director, just as a Treasury Minister shadows and oversees commissioners. That will be the case for as long as the Customs function remains within the Home Office. In practice, for the enlightenment of the Committee, I am told that I have a private secretary in an office in the Treasury, but I have yet to get across there to find it—[Interruption.] No, not two salaries. On a serious note, this means that the arrangements for and the relationship between duty levels—and VAT levels, in some respects, given the importance of customs to the Revenue—is set out in consultation with the Treasury and as part of Budget preparations. I hope that that explains the situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Children

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

9.15 am

Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): I would like the Minister to clarify a few points about the clause, which amends section 21 of the UK Borders Act 2007 and extends to a larger number of officials the duty of care regarding children in clause 57. Obviously, that applies to those transferring over from the Customs function, but I have looked at the impact statement and I could not see a specific listing about this, although I may have missed something. More than 3,000 staff will be transferring to the Borders Agency; what additional training on child protection issues will they get and where has that been costed? I cannot see that in the impact statement. Given recent concerns in the press about particular people, it is important that the duty of care is reinforced, and that we have evidence that those staff will get the training that they need to deal with minors.

Column number: 75

Mr. Woolas: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on spotting an important point. This is slightly confusing, but it is because of our good intent, not because of any desire to hide anything. We think that this is a positive part of the Bill—as indeed are all the other parts. The measures in part 1 are intended to come into force on Royal Assent, but clause 57, which relates to the duty regarding children, will not because we are publishing a consultation on how the new guidelines will work so that the House and wider interest groups will have the opportunity to influence them. Given the importance of this issue, I did not want to bring those new guidelines in on Royal Assent without first having given people the opportunity to consider them. Similarly, I did not want the guidelines to be wrong or deficient in any way because we had rushed them out, or to have unintended consequences. That is what I am trying to do.

The hon. Gentleman asked about training. I have already discussed the overall strategy for training, but he is right to ask for assurances regarding transferring officers who have not had that training but will have related issues in their job descriptions. As he knows, not all the people he mentioned will be engaged in this area, but many will, and we will include in the code of practice the obligations that officials have regarding the care of children and keeping them safe from harm. Indeed, one area covered by the code is staff training.

Keeping children safe is what we refer to in management speak as a three-tier learning and development programme designed to ensure that staff have the knowledge to safeguard children. Tier 1 is an electronic package designed to raise awareness of the issues around children, and is compulsory for all UK Border Agency staff, regardless of grade or department. Tier 2 is a classroom-based course where staff will have regular contact with children or children’s issues, or conduct substantive interviews with them. Tier 3 involves job-specific training for officers.

This is an important point, given that children do come into our care. As ever, it is not the child’s fault, whatever the state or the parents have done. That is why the clause is important. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

---

Prepared 12 June 2009