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: 231

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 18 June 2009

(Afternoon)

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]

1 pm

The Chairman: I welcome Members to the final sitting of this Public Bill Committee, which appears, if I may say so from the Chair, to have run extremely smoothly so far. I congratulate all Members who have ensured that smoothness, not least the Minister for Borders and Immigration, who is dealing with the Bill on his own. Whatever political party is in power, when a Minister sees through a Bill on his own, he should be commended, and I do so from the Chair in an entirely impartial way.

When we broke at 10.25 this morning for Question Time in the House, the hon. Member for Ashford, whose name has been mentioned a number of times on the Floor of the House in its deliberations, was speaking to new clause 2. I ask him to resume his feet and continue doing so.

New Clause 2

Establishment of UK Border Police Force

‘(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the UK Border Police Force.

(2) The UK Border Police Force shall have the functions of—

(a) detecting and removing illegal overstayers;

(b) protecting UK borders;

(c) investigating suspected employers of illegal immigrants;

(d) preventing and detecting human trafficking; and

(e) such other functions as the Secretary of State may by order determine.

(3) Before making an order under subsection (2)(e), the Secretary of State shall—

(a) publish proposals;

(b) consult members of the public and stakeholders; and

(c) lay a draft before each House of Parliament.

(4) Bodies to be consulted under subsection (3)(b) shall include—

(a) the Metropolitan Police Commissioner;

(b) representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers;

(c) the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate;

(d) representatives of the Serious Organised Crime Agency;

(e) representatives of the Association of Police Authorities; and

(f) such other people as the Secretary of State may determine.’.—(Damian Green.)

Brought up, read the First time, and motion made (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.

Column number: 232

Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I am sure that the Committee’s smooth running is due largely to your impeccable chairmanship.

The Chairman: I hoped you would say that.

Damian Green: I hoped that you were hoping that I would say it, Sir Nicholas.

When I was interrupted by the suspension this morning, I was praying in aid senior police officers in favour of our proposal in new clause 2 for a border police force. I had just moved on to Sir Ian Blair, who is not often prayed in aid from these Benches but who was right on this issue. He said in February 2005 that when the country

“got into the debate about SOCA, it surprised me that we did not have a national border police.”

I suppose that I should emphasise for the purposes of Hansard that when I refer to SOCA, I am talking about the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

Sir Ian Blair repeated that opinion:

“I have always thought that having a national border police was a good idea...I am very supportive of this issue.”

I have suggested a number of growing serious international crimes with which the border police would deal, and I want to return for a moment to the subject of human trafficking, because it is the fastest-growing international crime in the world. It is up there with transporting guns and drugs across frontiers, and I suspect, unfortunately, that it will continue to grow and become ever more serious. The UK is one of the biggest destination countries—I think that it is the biggest in Europe at the moment—for that crime. The Minister can correct me if he thinks that I am wrong, but whether we are or not, human trafficking is a serious problem for us. Not only are we a destination country, we are a transit country as well.

The latest estimate is that 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year. The number of women in the UK who are victims of trafficking is, of course, difficult to estimate, but there are many thousands. The figures for off-street prostitution are stark, vivid and terrible. Whereas 10 years ago, 15 per cent. of such women were foreign, the number is now about 85 per cent., according to some of the surveys I have seen. The proportion of women involved in prostitution who come from abroad has been turned on its head. Inevitably, large numbers of those women were trafficked here deceitfully, having been promised lives as waitresses and so on and then exploited by criminal gangs. The other, particularly horrific part of the trade is the trafficking of children, which also appears to be growing. In an attempt to combat that particularly evil trade alone, it will be worth while having a specialist border police force.

I emphasise the point that a specialised police service is particularly effective in fighting new types of crime. The Committee will be aware that we set up a committee under Lord Stevens, a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, to review our border security arrangements as a whole. His committee, which was full of other senior police officers and former Home Office officials, concluded that only a unified border force could protect our borders effectively. We are now building on the valuable and useful work of Lord Stevens and his committee to develop the detail of what we can do and when we can do it.

Column number: 233

I share the Minister’s concern that we should change our policing and other control systems gradually so that there is not too much disruption to existing activities. We know that it ought to be possible for a new force to be effective and that it ought to be able to protect our borders. We have discussed the one land border that this country has, and there is division across the Committee on how we should deal with it, given the common travel area, but there should be no division about whether all other UK borders can be defended. They ought to be defensible, but they are not defended well enough at the moment.

Experience in other areas of crime prevention shows that the type of specialisation we propose has been effective, so there is no reason why it could not be applied at the border. We also feel that the proposal has a tide running behind it. An early proponent was the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in a previous incarnation. In a report as far back as 2001, it recommended

“a single frontier force on the basis of secondment and direct employment, but with clear lines of communication”.

That was six years ago, and some steps toward better co-ordination of our enforcement activities at the border have been taken, but the Government have not taken the big, important step of not only involving the police but allowing them to set up a unified border force. I cannot remember how many times I have urged the Government do that when we have debated immigration Bills, but I do so strongly once again. We think that would be an important step forward in improving the safety of our borders and therefore the security of all those who live within our borders.

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Sir Nicholas.

Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): Slurp, slurp.

Tom Brake: It was a genuine comment, Sir Nicholas.

I rise partly in support of the proposal and partly to seek further clarification of it. The Liberal Democrats support the idea of a UK border police force, and would like to see such a force, but the Conservatives’ proposal seems to be for an all-purpose border and immigration force that focuses very much on immigration rather than policing. We would like the focus to be clearly on immigration and the policing of immigration issues, but also on the wider issue of crime. That does not come across in the proposal.

We believe that there is a need to unite different border functions, and it is clear that major crime is not a particularly local issue. Indeed, it is often a national or international issue, and therefore crosses borders, so we support having police powers within a UK border force. Perhaps when the Conservatives respond to the Minister, they will have an opportunity to set out whether they see the proposal as principally about tackling immigration issues at borders or whether there would also be a component for tackling major crime that is not linked to immigration.

In the other place, our proposed amendment referred to

“protecting UK borders...strengthening frontier protection against threats to the security, social and economic integrity and environment of the United Kingdom...preventing and detecting human trafficking; and...maintaining and improving a safe, ordered and secure environment in ports”.

Column number: 234

It is clear that more debate is needed, and perhaps this is one step towards what may be the Government’s longer term ambition of including the police. If that is the Government’s journey, I hope that they will speed up arrival at their destination.

It is probably sufficient to have expressed support in broad terms for the amendment, but to have queried the almost exclusive focus on immigration at the expense of other significant policing issues affecting our borders.

Mr. David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab): I am raising this question again because when I raised it at our first sitting, you kindly told me, Sir Nicholas, that that was the wrong time to do so, so I am now raising it at the appropriate time.

We already have a UK force. It is called the British Transport police. It is not new, but it needs to be adapted. We must recognise that the world has changed. When I was a young man, my ambition, like many boys in my age group, was to have a holiday abroad. The way we live has changed fundamentally, and the vast majority of British people can now take holidays—when I go into schools, every young kid tells me that they go on holiday abroad. The mass of people moving in and out of the country has changed the dynamics of how we operate.

What has not changed during that time is that we have not recognised that we must move the apparatus forward to ensure that all the agencies move as one. The agencies dealing with immigration, drugs, human trafficking, terrorism and so on are important. They have shown that they can adapt year on year, time after time, and their experience tells them when they must do so. The one agency that has never adapted is the uniformed police, and I make no apology for returning to that point.

I do not understand the nonsensical argument for having Lothian and Borders police in Edinburgh, Strathclyde police in Glasgow, Tayside police in Dundee, and Grampian police in Aberdeen. That is reflected throughout the UK. It makes no sense not to have a unified force with a single command structure that can adapt to changes over the years.

We are discussing devolving more power to Scotland, and that will follow in Wales and Northern Ireland, but increasing power should be a two-way stream. We should recognise that although Scots law is different from that in the rest of the UK, and that the police forces are different and come under different regimes, there is a sensible argument for some powers returning to Westminster. This is one. There is logic in having a structure that tells people clearly that if they arrive at any airport in the UK, the same system will operate. With the best will in the world, the co-operation between police forces and agencies lacks the necessary command structure.

I always say if one cannot say something in five minutes, it is not worth saying—although this place does not abide by that—so I shall not take up much time. My view, which is simple, not partisan, is that we must adapt to a world of changes, and we have not done that. We must get four Governments to sit down and agree that one Government—the UK Government—should deal with the matter. That makes sense, and the vast

Column number: 235

majority of people throughout the UK would understand that. We should have one force, one line of command and one Department, under one Parliament, not four.

1.15 pm

---

Prepared 19 June 2009