| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The two main themes of the Minister’s response were, first, that the police were already working very closely with the border force at every level and, secondly, that the amendments—both the ones tabled by the Conservatives and ours—left many issues that needed to be resolved. For example, who will be the head of the unified force? Should that person be a chief constable? Who will be responsible for the discipline of the police to be added to the force? Will the IPCC or some other body have jurisdiction over complaints against those officers? Will the police in the unifying force cover protection of the infrastructure of the counterterrorism force and general crime and disorder there? We take a different view from the Conservatives, as I tried to explain in Committee. While we share the long-term objective that there should be a unifying force, we look at Part 1 as being an important step towards that ultimate goal. We were encouraged that nowhere in his lengthy remarks did the Minister query that proposition in principle.
Our two main objections to the noble Baroness’s amendment were that some of the functions that the Tories wanted to give their UK border police force went beyond the protection of our borders and the issues involving employers of illegal immigrants and the internal policing of human trafficking, extending into matters that were the result of the failure to protect our borders adequately but were not about present-day protection of those borders. As I also mentioned in that debate, there is the vital question of how the unified border force will operate in Scotland, where the police come under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament. From the inquiries that I have made via Scottish Lib Dem colleagues, the matter has
25 Mar 2009 : Column 665
3.45 pm
In our previous debate, the Minister said that the Government intend to pursue a phased approach to the enhancement of our border security. The approach will concentrate on counterterrorism, including joint operations between the police and the border force, and intelligence sharing between them. He referred to measures in the Policing and Crime Bill, which deal in particular with security at airports. I have read Clause 76 of, and Schedule 6 to, that Bill and did not see anything that reads across into the matters with which we are dealing under this Bill. I do not question the Minister’s assurance that there will be close co-ordination between the police and the border force, but it would be interesting to hear more about what he called the “even more practical improvements” that emerged from the conference being held on the same day as our debate, 25 February.
As we see it, the Government are taking the pragmatic view that the Immigration Service and HMRC need time to digest the far-reaching changes that are being imposed in Part 1 and to explore with the police any non-statutory arrangements that can be made for the closer collaboration that is necessary and desirable between them. However, at the same time, they are not ruling out the creation of a unified border force to bring in the police at a later date. If it can be shown that that is the most effective way to protect our borders, that will be the way to go. We accept that challenge and will seek to launch our own study to see how far we can get ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities to agree on what the next step should be. In the mean time, we do not intend to press our amendment to a Division.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 2, as an amendment to Amendment 1, because it is preferable to Amendment 1 as proposed by the Conservatives. The whole attitude is different: it is positive and constructive. Our first proposal in the amendment is for the UK border police force to protect UK borders, which is important. The Conservative amendment first proposes,
That is a sort of Alf Garnett approach, suggesting a desire to grab headlines, such as “Tories want to see overstayers expelled” and that sort of thing. Our approach is more rational, progressive and constructive. If there is a vote—I do not think that there will be—I would say that the Liberal Democrat amendment is far superior to that of the Conservatives.
Lord Dear: My Lords, in rising to speak to these amendments, I do not intend, with your Lordships’ agreement, to get involved in a party-political spat. I want to comment on the place of the police within a border agency. I spoke on this in Committee on 25 February, when I supported a single all-embracing border agency, as outlined in the Stevens report, to which reference has already been made today. As I said at the time, that would ensure a number of things.
25 Mar 2009 : Column 666
Significantly, I said at that time that the Association of Chief Police Officers supports the concept of a single agency, including the police within such a border agency. The Minister challenged that view at cols. 214-15 of the Official Report on 25 February 2009. I repeat today that it is the stated view of ACPO that it supports a single agency, including the police within that body. I checked immediately after the Committee stage and found that I was right. I checked as recently as this morning in a lengthy telephone conversation with the president of ACPO, and nothing has changed between 25 February and today.
I will take your Lordships quickly through the stages to remove any doubt. In the summer of 2007, ACPO asked one of its number, Assistant Chief Constable John Donlon, the national co-ordinator for ports policing, to produce a report, and he did so in the summer of 2007. The report was entitled Border Policing—Options for Change. The options that were investigated ranged from the formation of a fully integrated, single border agency right through to no change at all. The stated objective was for,
- “a single border agency bringing together all agencies operating at the border, including the police, into one truly integrated organisation”.
In November 2007, the Cabinet Office carried out its own border review and published the results. It recommended the UK Border Agency, which ruled out the inclusion of the police. ACPO was anxious to work with the grain of government, against its now stated policy, and was anxious to make the best of the concept of the UK Border Agency, as included in the Bill. In other words, it was going to make the best of an indifferent job. I hasten to add that “the best of an indifferent job” are my words, and not ACPO’s.
ACPO then asked John Donlon to produce a second report. He produced that report, entitled Border Policing—The Next Step, in July 2008. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the strapline to that report:
“A paper to inform discussion on modernising police structures in the light of Cabinet Office Border Review recommendations”.
It recommended the establishment of a single national police force to police ports and airports in this country, working alongside and with the newly envisaged UKBA. In other words, there would be a national police force covering the ports and there would be the new UK Border Agency. ACPO deserves praise for that. It was co-operating with the Government, as one would hope, and it was, significantly, willing to give up a good deal of its own operational responsibility, manpower, budgetary base, and so on, to create that force.
It was not a change of preference. Its stated preference is still to espouse the single agency that has been mentioned already by the two noble Lords who have spoken before me. We should declare the aim of having
25 Mar 2009 : Column 667
Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, I, too, strongly support the aim of the United Kingdom border police force being part of the UK Border Agency. I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on Trafficking of Women and Children. One reason is that the proposals of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats would include the UK border police force having the function of preventing and detecting human trafficking, which is to be seen nowhere else—as far as I know—in any policy requirement. I am in no way suggesting that the police around the country do not do their best, but they are doing it in different areas. It is extremely important to have a border police force with the specific duty and responsibility of preventing and detecting human trafficking. For that reason in particular, and for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, I support both amendments. Since it looks as though only one will be put to a Division, I will support it.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to the proposal from both of the Front Benches opposite for exactly the same reasons as those expressed by my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss. If the Government could assure us that they will right this particular aspect, one which particularly horrifies us—we know how many trafficked people, particularly women and children, are in the country but not accounted for—by stating it explicitly in the Bill, I might then have second thoughts. However, I have listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Dear and have considerable sympathy with his view. I look forward with hope and expectancy to the Minister’s response.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I suppose I should declare that I have some slight experience of crossing borders unnoticed in one way or the other, which is the nicest way I can put it. I hope that the Minister will listen to what has been said by the noble and learned Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dear. Our country needs the tightest regulation and rules, as well as a concerted effort being made by one force. I detect from the Government’s present view that they are being a little wishy-washy about a real border protection force. I therefore support the speakers who have gone before me and I hope that the Minister will be tough and positive about this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for their explanation of why these amendments have been tabled. I am in no doubt whatever that everyone in this Chamber believes in strong borders for all the reasons we have given about their importance to the security of this nation.
25 Mar 2009 : Column 668
We discussed the noble Baroness’s proposals at length in Committee, when I had to go through a whole raft of clause stand part Motions which I have to admit was rather over long. I set out then the reasons I felt that we are going in the right direction and that the proposals in the amendments were not the right approach. I have to reiterate those reasons. We are not at all clear about exactly what is meant when talking about a single police border force, and the sheer complexity of it would be great. The noble Baroness referred to the complicated arrangements set out in the Bill to form the border force we have proposed. When you are in government and trying to make something work both administratively and operationally, it is a highly complex exercise. Just to say in loose terms, “Let’s have a border police force and shove them in with it”, begs certain questions. What are the functions, who should be put into the force, who should the leadership of the organisation be—a police officer or a civil servant?—to whom would it be accountable, issues of devolution and huge issues of funding—would it require top-slicing and how would it be done? These are extremely complicated and difficult questions.
This was looked at in the Cabinet Office report, Security in a Global Hub, to try and deliver practical improvements to border security as a result of the attacks in 2007. Having looked at the complexities and difficulties, the Cabinet Office decided that having a single border police force was not the way ahead at the time. It did reach that decision because it would have been happy with something less good, but because there are real and practical ways of going about these things. Certainly, what we are doing is practical and will work. We have a responsibility and a duty to back up our policy proposals with well-thought-through provisions, which these are. I know that the noble Baroness seemed to think that they were a bit rushed, but they are not. For a Government, we are moving quickly, but we are not rushing.
4 pm
Indeed, we already have the border force in place and working to some rather ad hoc rules, with work-arounds—that is not the way to do it—to achieve what we are saying we want to do. We need to get it on a proper basis; that is why the provisions in Part 1 of the Bill provide the necessary legal framework to build on the earlier successes of our border force and ensure that the officers and staff have the powers that they need to do their job effectively in the modern world. The measures in Part 1 complete the job of laying the foundations, where we have already started that work.
We have already taken important steps to enhance border security, but we need the provisions in Part 1 to complete that process. There is, therefore, a time issue, which is why it is important to move this quickly. I explained why we have not left this to later legislation; we want to get this in place and working for the security of the nation, so that we can have it fully in
25 Mar 2009 : Column 669
I shall say a little more about policing. I have already mentioned that we had a long debate about this before today, and on the proposal to create a new border police force we have really heard nothing to persuade us that our approach is wrong. It is a highly complex thing to do. The judgment within the Cabinet meeting was that this is not the right way to go. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, talked about the ACPO position; all I would say there is that it seems to fluctuate a bit. As the noble Lord made clear, we have talked to ACPO at length. I have talked to a number of people within ACPO—a number of chief constables—and there are various views about this. The APA has a different view. There are a number of different views about this because it is so complex and hard to know exactly how to go ahead.
Our bottom-line judgement remains that we have not seen a compelling case as to the operational benefits to be derived for setting up a new national border police force, when we set them against the potentially significant costs, which are probably real, and a number of drawbacks involved. I do not believe that we have heard noble Lords articulating such a compelling case. It seems superficially attractive, and is easily said, but if you have to be there to implement it would not be quite so straightforward or so clear-cut that it will work as well as has been said.
In Committee, I set out to your Lordships our approach to enhancing significantly the already close working relationship between the police and the border force. The noble Baroness may not have said that it was at arm’s length, but she gave the feeling that it was not close, but it is a very close relationship and works well. We are trying to make it even better. Indeed, ACPO is helping us on this and I am grateful for its work there. We have a very firm platform to build on. I think of the creation, within the past few years, of the police counterterrorism network, and of dedicated regional assets closely linked to local Special Branches, which gives quite a lot of flexibility—particularly to the local chief constables. We will take steps to enhance border policing within that network and to improve standards, consistency and co-ordination. So, I believe that it is good and getting better.
Yesterday, the government strategy known as CONTEST came out. It is the first time that we have set out, in a public document, a detailed account of the history of the threat from international terrorism, the impact that has had on the UK, our understanding of its causes and our view of its likely direction. The current threat of international terrorism remains “severe”, meaning that an attack is highly likely. A key part of the strategy is ensuring the security of our borders. I am delighted, as I have said, that all noble Lords who have spoken absolutely see that, understand it and support it.
The CONTEST strategy sets out steps that we are taking to improve our protection. The Memorandum of Understanding between the border agency and the
25 Mar 2009 : Column 670
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked what happened at the conference referred to in Committee on 25 February. I was not there myself, but I understand that it was a very useful meeting between senior police, the border force and Home Office officials. They discussed quite a lot of the detail on some of the proposals to improve standards and national co-ordination. There is no doubt that we are improving intelligence sharing. They are going to meet again in April to go the next step further. In a sense, these things are still living; I would never say that never in future would we ever say we are not going to have a border police force. Perhaps conditions will change and we will see things differently but, at the moment, it is not the appropriate thing to do. It is much more important that we achieve what we are achieving here, which is something that is achievable and practical and will absolutely enhance the security of our borders and, therefore, our nation.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the Policing and Crime Bill. There are provisions to assist with collaboration between police forces in that Bill, which is presently in the other place. It also refers to airport security.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to trafficking. I cannot put something in this Bill on that issue, but I absolutely understand the full horror of trafficking and how important it is. Later in the Bill, when it comes to children, this subject will again be mentioned. What I certainly will do is consider whether there is some measure that could be reflected within the new border force, because this is a very high priority for everyone. I shall see what can be done in that sense.
We will not or do not intend to create a new national border police force. Our energies and those of the police and the border force are much better put to delivering increased protection through the steps that we have outlined, rather than stretching out towards a rather vaguely articulated position, with all sorts of implications that we do not understand, which may or may not be workable in practice. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for not ruling out the ultimate creation of a unified border force on the lines proposed by both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in their strategy documents. We have accepted the arguments that the Minister advanced, both in Committee and this afternoon, for not proceeding with the proposal at this stage.
We listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, said. It was interesting that ACPO revised its position following the publication of the Cabinet Office report in July 2007 and came round to the view that it should, for the time being, rule out the creation of a unified force. The Minister rather unfairly said that its position seemed to fluctuate when what it had
25 Mar 2009 : Column 671
We welcome what the Minister said about the progress made at the conference on 25 February. Will he kindly place any outcome of that conference in the Library so we can all have a look at it? If we can see that the arrangements that are being made between the police and the border force are such as to promote this ever-closer co-operation, which everybody wants to see, to deal with the menace of trafficking and drug importation and to counter the threat of illegal immigration, we will all have achieved the result that we wanted, even if we have not reached the ultimate goal of a unified force at this stage. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1) withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. It has provided an extra dimension to what is in the Bill, or perhaps a different view of what should be there. I am enormously grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, whose great expertise on this subject I value highly. His contributions, both today and in Committee, have been extremely effective.
I am grateful also for the tacit support of the Liberal Democrats. We are running along the same tram lines, although they may diverge slightly. I am not so happy with the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, which underplayed the importance of what we are proposing. As I have made clear, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that our borders are secure—there is no difference on that between any of us in the Chamber. What we are trying to demonstrate is that there is a missing ingredient in the Bill.
We have had two good debates on this matter. It is clear that the Government are not going to move at this stage. I am still of the view that there is a missing link in the proposals being put forward by the Government. The Minister said that there was a great deal of complexity in what has been done. It would be a pity if all of it had to be redone in order to put into the Bill, in a full and committed way, the police element.
I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, for contributing. This is a debate that will be returned to in time: it will not go away, because it is of such fundamental importance to how we ensure that we in this country are secure, and that the movement of people and the trafficking of goods across our borders are properly managed and well understood. I do not suggest that they are not; I suggest that we can enhance them.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |