| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Avebury: The Minister seeks to justify the exercise of the power without a warrant by saying that there may be a need to act quickly and without notice. But does he agree that obtaining a warrant is not necessarily a cumbersome or time-consuming process because any justice of the peace may grant it? Furthermore, it will be granted without notice to the affected parties. Therefore, does the noble Lord agree that there are serious considerations of privacy and commercial confidentiality which might make a business reluctant to subject itself to unnecessary and unjustified searches by officials? Is it not a necessary and valuable safeguard against frivolous and unjustified searches that the persons concerned need to apply for a warrant?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I invite the noble Lord to think of the following. Let us imagine that an immigration official approaches an employer and goes to his premises. If, for example, the employer refuses entry and the official is then obliged to go away and seek a warrant so that he can gain access to the premises, it is possible that, during the course of seeking the warrant, valuable evidence will be destroyed or removed from the premises. That power is required for exactly such situations.
The hard fact is that there are people who seek to evade the law. There are people who wish to frustrate sensible, efficient and effective enforcement. Whether or not we like it, the powers are essential in those circumstances. I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to be seen to frustrate the powers required in any way. I hope that all Members of the Committee support Clause 133 because we believe that it is essential. It is needed as part of our armoury of enforcement.
Lord Dholakia: My noble friend raised a somewhat different point. Before an immigration officer knocks on the door of an employer to find out whether people are there illegally, should he not first obtain an appropriate warrant from a magistrate before searching the premises? That occurs in ordinary cases. I have sat as a magistrate. The police come to you. I do not tell employers that the police will knock on their door. But there should be a safeguard so that immigration officers do not go on fishing expeditions. Those cause considerable harm to good community relations. That is why my noble friend insists on the need for a warrant before entering premises.
Lord Berkeley: A number of noble Lords have talked about fishing expeditions. Which amendment are we discussing? I see no amendment on the Marshalled List on clauses between Clauses 129 and 134. It would be better to discuss an amendment on the Marshalled List or to have an amendment tabled at a subsequent stage.
Lord Hylton: If it helps the noble Lord, we are discussing whether Clause 133 shall stand part of the Bill. There are separate amendments on Clause 134.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If we were obliged to follow the course of action upon which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, insists, there would be occasions when good law enforcement would be utterly frustrated. Knowing the noble Lord as I do, I cannot believe that he would wish such a situation to arise. Of course enforcement officers will respect the sensitivity of their investigations. But I am sure the noble Lord will accept that there will be occasions when it is essential for immigration officers to act with due speed. In those circumstances, we believe that the powers are justified.
Lord Avebury: In order to substantiate his claim surely the Minister can give examples where immigration or customs officers have been frustrated by the lack of these powers. For example, they have first asked the employer whether they can gain voluntary access to premises to see whether illegal entrants are working there or whether evidence of the activity of illegal entrants can be found; when the employer refuses access they have had to obtain a warrant, and that delay has resulted in the destruction or mutilation of evidence.
Where the police or customs officers have reasonable cause to think that illegal entrants are being harboured on the premises, or that evidence of illegal entrants having worked on the premises will be found in a search, they would not alert the employer by knocking on the door and asking, "Have you any illegal entrants here?" They would know that the answer would be, "We refuse to give you access to the premises". They would obtain a warrant from the magistrate and, armed with that warrant to search the premises, the employer would be bound to admit them.
The Minister has not produced any cases which demonstrate that the police or customs officers have been frustrated, or where cases against employers have not been able to be mounted because of the lack of those powers. Therefore, we should probe the matter further on Report. I do not suggest that we can do anything now. The noble Lord has not given a satisfactory explanation of why these somewhat extensive powers are needed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sorry if I have not satisfied the noble Lord. These powers have a precedent. For example, there is an existing power in Section 28C of the 1971 Act which allows an officer or a constable to enter premises without a warrant in order to search for and arrest someone for the facilitation offences in Section 25 of that Act. It is a much broader power than we are creating here. It applies to any premises, not just to business premises. Other agencies, such as the police and customs, have power to enter premises without a warrant in order to search for and to arrest offenders. The main police powers—noble Lords will probably know better than I—are contained in Section 27 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
We are not aware that these powers—these precedents—have caused any problems in the past. If the noble Lord has good cases that suggest they have created problems, of course we should like to hear of them. I simply argue that these powers are important to this piece of legislation. It is important for us to have effective enforcement powers. We have not had, to date, any experience of problems with them. They work perfectly well. There are more than adequate safeguards. So I suggest to the noble Lord that these powers are absolutely essential. I understand that it is right that we should debate and discuss these matters, but they are an effective part of a whole battery of things that we need in order to make sure that—so far as concerns the exercise of powers—immigration officers are able to be effective and efficient in carrying out their duties.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord sits down, it is not for me to justify my arguments as a reason for not having this clause on the statute book. The Minister is the Minister. It is up to him to justify what the Government are asking for. They are asking for the clause to be accepted by noble Lords. So it is up to them to say why they need it and not for me to prove the contrary.
Clause 134 [Power to search for evidence]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 238ZM:
- Page 75, line 16, leave out "the constable or immigration officer reasonably believes" and insert "on application made by an immigration officer, a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 238ZM, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 238ZN, 238ZP and 238ZQ.
I listened to the discussion on Clause 133 stand part with considerable interest. Long experience tells me that it is not more powers given to investigating officers, it is not more and more sophisticated techniques from the police or other investigating authorities and it is not even more bobbies on the beat which leads to the solution of crime; it is the co-operation of the public. It is the people who have to endure being witnesses in court and who have to throw open their premises from time to time for searches to be made. It is important always to get the balance right.
It really is not sufficient just to increase powers all the time. What was revealing about the Minister's response to the last debate was that he said it is getting more and more difficult to get people to co-operate. That really proves my point. The greater the powers sought, the more it appears to the public that an imposition is being placed on them by the investigating authorities and the less co-operation the authorities will receive.
Nothing causes delay or difficulty in obtaining a warrant from a magistrate. It happens every day all over the country without any problems whatever. It is in those circumstances that I move Amendment No. 238ZM.
Clause 134 refers to the situation where a person has been arrested for employment offences. The constable or immigration officer goes to the business premises where that person is employed and demands to see the records. It is not as though he is even investigating that firm necessarily. There should not be fishing expeditions. There should be the simple safeguard of a warrant. That is one point.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 238ZP and 238ZQ. They try to confine the powers of investigation not to all employee records, as the Bill is drawn, but to the records of the employee who has been arrested. As drawn, the Bill would permit the investigating authorities to go to business premises where one person is suspected of being in breach of immigration employment laws, and carry out a trawl through all the records of that company. That is excessive and it is fishing. We suggest that the Government would gain the co-operation of employers and the public much more if they struck a proper balance between the need to investigate and catch offenders and the co-operation of the public who are the people who will ensure that convictions are ultimately obtained. I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page