Damian
Green: I am not sure that the Minister meant to say that
he was using immigration powers to tackle immigration
offences—the Elliott Ness strategy. Did he mean customs powers
to tackle
immigration?
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is very awake this morning. The
story of Elliott Ness is that Al Capone, the gangster, was caught not
by the laws relating to
murder and guns, but by the tax laws. Immigration-related crime can on
occasions be properly highlighted by the using immigration powers.
There is nothing new about that. He asked whether I meant
customs-related powers. The powers of examination, search, detention
and arrest already apply to immigration officials in relation to
immigration control and immigration-related crime. As we know, customs
officers also have a wide range of powers to combat smuggling of
prohibited, restricted or dutiable goods at the border, such as drugs,
guns, tobacco and alcohol. One of the key arguments why everyone
supports bringing together the two functions is because we are often
trying to catch the same
people. The
powers of customs officials include powers of questioning, search,
detention, seizure and arrest. In integrating immigration customs
controls, it is essential that officers of the border agency have the
necessary powers to carry out the full range of immigration and customs
functions at the border to support wider law enforcement activity. When
we discuss clause 23, we shall go into more detail about the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 powers that the amendments tabled by the
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington highlight, and I commend the
consistency of his
approach. The
key difference between the two sets of powers is, indeed, the seizure
power, which is related to later measures. In integrating immigration
and customs controls, it is essential that the officers have the
necessary powers to carry out the full range of immigration and customs
functions at the border. Not only will that enhance the skills and
capabilities of our border force but, by increasing the capacity, it
will also allow us to respond more flexibly to the threats that we face
and to maximise the effectiveness of the
agency. The
hon. Member for Ashford asked whether the powers would therefore be
properly authorised. That was his consequential point. The designation
of officers under the Bill can take place only when the officer is
suitable and properly trained. That includes powers to search persons,
as has been noted. However, the power will be used not for immigration
functions, but for customs functions only, as it is
now. The
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about the training for
designated customs officials. Before being entitled to be designated,
they must undertake training. The appropriate skills required include,
of course, those under the relevant legislation; knowledge of the
customs regime, such as the common agricultural policy; disclosure
handling of material that is gathered during criminal investigation;
questioning and note-taking; how to arrest and caution; custody
charging and bail procedures; rules of evidence; customs allowances;
how to deal with EU and non-EU goods; the calculation of duty and VAT;
searching a person’s baggage and vehicle; and personal safety
training, of course. I bring to the Committee’s attention, in
particular to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, that
that training needs to be specific to Scotland, where there is a
separate legal
regime. Mr.
David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab): Some time ago, I was
involved in a Westminster Hall debate on the issue. It makes no sense
to simplify legislation while we continue to use various local police
forces. That does not add up. For example, in Scotland, Strathclyde
police have to deal with Glasgow airport, Lothian and Borders
police with Edinburgh airport, Tayside police with Dundee airport and
Grampian police with Aberdeen airport. Is this not the time to consider
a proper UK border police force? That would make perfect sense, because
it would be a logical extension of how things are
going. Mr.
Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): That is what we
think.
Mr.
Hamilton: I do not agree with the Tories
though.
The
Chairman: Order. May I help the Committee? That was a very
relevant question, but I am not entirely sure that it is relevant at
this stage. However, I will use my discretion and allow the Minister to
reply.
Mr.
Woolas: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. The relevant phrase is,
“Now is not the time.” I do not mean that in relation to
the Committee’s debate, but in relation to the evolution of
UKBA. The hon.
Member—
Mr.
Woolas: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the
relationship between police forces, UKBA and the existing powers. This
morning’s debate is restricted to a set of proposals that simply
transfer existing powers from HMRC to UKBA and expand the role of
immigration officials to include the capacity, under certain conditions
that I have outlined, to deal with customs as well as immigration
matters.
I accept the
intention of amendment 15, as proposed by the hon. Member for Ashford,
but it would not have the desired effect. In practice, it would
exclusively transfer functions to the Secretary of State and to the
director of border revenue, and not to their officers, so they would
not be allowed to carry out their
functions.
Damian
Green: The Minister will be relieved that I am not going
to discuss the border police again. He has very helpfully given us a
list of all the ways in which officers being given the new powers will
have to be trained, which illustrates the extensive amount of training
and the sensitive subjects involved. Will he give an indication of the
level and length of training that is being undertaken by officials who
are being given the new powers? Clearly, customs powers need to be
given to some while immigration training needs to be given to others.
It would help the Committee to know whether the training is as thorough
as it should be so that we can all have confidence in the people who
are given the
powers.
Tom
Brake: Will the Minister give
way?
Mr.
Woolas: If the question is on the same point, I
will.
Tom
Brake: To echo that point, will the Minister confirm
whether the training will be of the same duration as the current
training? He also highlighted seizure as an area in which there are new
powers. Will he focus on that in particular and confirm that the
training will be identical to the current training given to customs
officials?
Mr.
Woolas: Personally, I believe that that is an extremely
important point. Part of our strategy in unifying UKBA is to increase
the public’s awareness of the professional status of our
officials. In short, they get
a bad press, which is unfair because they do a very dangerous job in
many cases and occasionally have to deal with some pretty difficult
people. I do not mean just members of the British public; I mean
criminal elements. Of course, the management strategies that are in
place for transferring the functions are not wholesale. There is not a
simple move-over; there is a staged approach. I will make some points
about that approach which may be
helpful. We
have transferred some 4,500 officers of Revenue and Customs to the UK
Border Agency so that they can continue carrying out their customs
functions. What matters is the size of the port. At Harwich, for
example, where there is a team of about two dozen immigration and
customs officials dealing with the two major ferry routes and the
general freight, having more flexibility clearly means that there is a
greater capacity. However, if one looks at, say, Heathrow’s
terminal 3—I choose that example off the top of my
head—where there are a large number of staff, there are more
specialisms within that staff group, so the training programmes are
bespoke. It is not as if all officers are getting all the same training
to transfer to do all the same functions. As I am sure the hon.
Gentleman accepts, it is not as straightforward as
that.
As I have
said, however, some 4,500 officers of Revenue and Customs will transfer
to the UK Border Agency to continue carrying out their customs
functions. The training for officers, to top up, involves two weeks of
guided learning, a six-week residential course and a period of between
four and six weeks, depending on the port or airport concerned, in
situ. That training is also accredited and it is, of course, not the
full extent of the training that is required. So there are programmes
in place to help people to transfer and to top up.
I think that
the specific question was, “Can we be confident?” I have
satisfied myself that the training is in addition to other requirements
and that it is both working and beneficial. I have seen the success of
the project on my visits. I hope that that does not sound like
propaganda; I am speaking on behalf of the agency rather than making
any political point. The successes that we have had in seizures and in
stopping clandestines can be ascribed, I think, to the establishment of
the agency. In some cases, I think that they can be ascribed to better
training, although the technology is perhaps having a major effect
too.
I reassure
the Committee by saying that the transfer of the powers does not
involve new powers. The relationship between the Secretary of State and
the revenue functions of Customs does not change that strongly held and
conventional principle about new powers in our systems.
The hon.
Member for Ashford is right about the powers on immigration: they
extend to customs functions as part of the establishment of the agency.
The point about the police and their relationship with this issue,
which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian raised and which has
also been raised in the other place, is covered elsewhere in the
Bill.
Tom
Brake: I want to be certain that the Minister understands
our concerns; I am sure that he does. We are still worried that
officers are potentially becoming more generalist in their approach,
with a wider range of
responsibilities that potentially leads to more problems, or more
failures to follow the appropriate guidelines or procedures. Is
anything in place that will ensure that the training programme is
reviewed after a certain period, to guarantee that it is pitched at the
appropriate level?
Mr.
Woolas: I am not aware of a specific date by which there
would be a review; I would have to ask the senior management to give me
information on that. What I can say is that the transfer of terms and
conditions is one of the most complicated transfers of this kind that I
have been aware of, and I have seen a lot of such transfers. Training,
and the commitment to revisit training, are part of that process. We
need to see whether the training is working and whether we have got the
balance between the economies of scale, with the greater flexibilities
that they bring and the specialisms that are needed, right in each
port. 11.30
am A
real example would be X-raying for radioactive materials. Perhaps the
most important function that UKBA carries out is trying to prevent
people from bringing dirty bombs into the country. Clearly, that is a
specialist function and we will not dilute it. Having said that, the
answer to the specific question is that I cannot in all honesty say
that I am aware of a date. The advice I have just been handed assures
me that training is being reviewed, but I apologise because I do not
think there is a specific date on that. I think it is a rolling
programme, depending on the circumstances in the ports and
airports. I
hope I have convinced the Committee that the amendments are necessary
and beneficial and that amendment No. 15, although well intended, would
not achieve what it is designed to do. I nevertheless accept the
intention behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for
Ashford. Amendment
18 agreed
to. Amendment
made: 19, in clause 1, page 2, line 36, leave out from
‘means’ to end of line 37 and insert
‘— (a) a function that is
exercisable— (i) by the
Secretary of State by virtue of this section,
or (ii) by general customs
officials by virtue of section
3, (b) a function that is
conferred on general customs officials or the Secretary of State 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 Secretary of State or general
customs officials in relation to a
matter— (i) in relation
to which functions under Community law are exercisable by the
Commissioners or officers of Revenue and Customs,
and (ii) that is not listed in
paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection
(2).’.—(Mr.
Woolas.) This
amendment defines the “general customs functions”
exercisable by the Secretary of State and general customs officials,
including functions under Community law, so that clauses 14 to 21 apply
to information generated in the exercise of those
functions. Clause
1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
2Power
of Secretary of State to modify
functions Amendment
made: 20, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end
insert—
‘( ) make provision for a function of the
Secretary of State or general customs officials to be
treated, or not to be treated, as a general customs
function.’.—(Mr.
Woolas.) This
amendment is related to amendment 19 and provides the Secretary of
State with power to modify, by order, the definition of “general
customs function” to include or exclude, as appropriate,
particular
functions.
Damian
Green: I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2,
page 3, line 15, at end
add— ‘(4) The Secretary of
State must lay an annual report before both Houses of Parliament
detailing the amendments that have been made by order under subsection
(1).’. I
observe that we all spoke very briefly about how the programme motion
was very relaxed, and we have just spent an hour dealing with clause 1
of a 61 clause Bill. I seek to reassure hon. Members on both sides of
the Committee in saying that I suspect that from now on progress will
be slightly faster, unless there are more rafts of Government
amendments, as yet unseen, for later parts of the Bill. That is always
possible. Amendment
2 would protect and enhance the powers of this place. We suggest that
the Secretary of State should have to lay an annual report before both
Houses of Parliament detailing the amendments that have been made by
order under subsection (1). This aspect of the Bill was not debated in
another place, but as we have just debated, the Home Secretary has the
power to amend the definitions and applications of general customs
matters, which, as we established in that very good debate, are
extremely powerful matters in the hands of officers. If they can be
amended by the Home Secretary, we believe it right that he should
report regularly to the House on the changes
made. On
Second Reading, there was a degree of consensus on that matter among
Opposition parties. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), who
speaks for the Liberal Democrats on home affairs, complained about a
degree of reliance on statutory instruments, which give Ministers the
power to make things up at a later date. A similar complaint was made
not only by me, but by my hon. Friend the shadow Home
Secretary. Such
concerns take on added significance in light of amendment 20, which has
just been agreed to. I think we would all agree that, at this difficult
time for Parliament, the power of Parliament to scrutinise legislation
in detail is one of the things that we do not get right and we have not
got right for a very long time. Frankly, we should avail ourselves of
every opportunity to give Parliament the chance to do one of the jobs
that people expect it to do. It should not simply scrutinise the big
Bills on Second Reading or in Committee; it should make sure that the
small things that often become big later are properly scrutinised as
well.
The Minister
made an extremely good point earlier when he said that he believed in
pre-legislative scrutiny. He is right about that. However, he also said
that he believed in post-legislative scrutiny and he is right about
that, too. Inevitably, some legislation has unintended consequences. If
the House of Commons passes legislation knowingly and openly and there
are unintended consequences, we all have to face up to that problem.
However, the amendment would stop a different problem whereby
innocuous- looking orders, or decisions, can be made by
Ministers—not quite in secret; I am not accusing
anyone of that—in relation to matters that would not normally
attract any attention. One, two or three years down the line, one might
suddenly discover that those issues have had a significant effect on
the lives of many people, who cannot understand how the decision was
made without anyone raising an objection at the
time. | 
