The
Minister for Borders and Immigration (Mr. Phil
Woolas): Thank you for your kind words, Sir Nicholas. I
welcome you back to the Chair. I had hoped to have an Under-Secretary
to help me, but that is not to be.
Ministers
often resist Opposition amendments on the grounds that they were not
invented here, although they rarely admit that. I assure the Committee
that that is not the basis for my argument on new clause 2. As the hon.
Member for Ashford said, there is a long-standing debate behind the
suggestion and it has been debated within the police force and
elsewhere. Indeed, the Government’s Green Paper consulted on a
similar proposal—although it was not exactly the same in its
range. Let me reassure the Committee that my argument is not based on
the fact that the proposal is not my new
clause. There
is an argument for what is being proposed. My hon. Friend the Member
for Midlothian has put the argument, as have some people in the police
force. The matter was also debated in the other place—although I
do not think it was voted on. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord
West of Spithead—known in the Department as west of Spithead as
opposed to east of Manchester as in my case—set out the
significant steps that the Government have already taken towards the
objective that my hon. Friend raised: making sure that we have the best
command and control to deal with what we all accept is a significant
issue in the United Kingdom.
In addition to
ensuring that we have the powers to strengthen our border controls for
the purposes of migration management and customs detection, which we
have been debating in the Bill and in relation to other things, we
should make sure that we have the right structures in place. It is
important that there is integration at the ports and airports, and
through the postal service. The postal service is often overlooked in
public debates on this matter because it is not an immediately visible
facility, but our postal detection facilities are very important in
relation to customs
powers. Increasingly,
there has recently been what I have described as the exportation of the
border—the juxtaposed controls at Calais, in Belgium and
potentially elsewhere if dispersement happens. The hon. Member for
Carshalton and Wallington rightly picked me up on that. There has been
integration of Customs and Revenue functions not only in relation to
the border and immigration authority as was, but in relation to UK
Visas. Traditionally, the staff whom the United Kingdom Government
employ to check and issue visas came under the remit of the Foreign
Office, but they now come under the UK Border Agency. Some 3,000 of our
staff are employed overseas and that is a further exportation of the
border. I
cannot argue against the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for
Ashford on the basis that we do not want integrated structures; it is
really a question of how best to achieve those objectives and how one
draws the line. That is the basis of my argument. The provisions
of part 1 provide a more robust legal framework for the UK Border
Agency, so that it can build upon its successes. We are very proud of
its successes and we think that we get an unfair hearing given the
dangerous and difficult job that our people do. On Second
Reading, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made some
criticisms of our border controls. I understand why, but let me briefly
paint a picture of why we think we are improving the situation. I
suppose I could be accused of making partisan points, but these are the
facts. It is true that we now deport more people than
ever—66,000 people were removed from the UK in 2008. I am sorry,
but that figure is not more than ever as there were previous years when
there were slightly more. However, in recent years there has been a
significantly upward trend. Some 5,400 of those people were foreign
national prisoners. A Home Secretary resigned over that issue and took
responsibility for that. So it is incumbent on us to
improve. On
illegal migrants, more than 1 million freight vehicles were searched
last year, and as a result 28,000 attempts to enter the country
illegally were stopped. I say “attempts”, not people,
because some attempts involved the same people trying to get back
in. The
hon. Member for Ashford is right to mention people trafficking. Our
crime teams at major ports, working with the police authorities in the
area and the Serious Organised Crime Agency, have successfully
prosecuted more than 70 people who have been involved in organising
smuggling and trafficking. A specialist team at Heathrow, the Paladin
team, detected and helped 184 children last year who we believe were
being
trafficked. On
drugs and firearms smuggling, seizures of class A drugs reached record
levels in 2008 and detection of illegal firearms
doubled. On
organised crime directly, our approach has been to set up immigration
crime partnerships across the UK. We have worked with the Association
of Chief Police Officers on that. This is a difficult argument for me
to get across, because it is a matter of where one draws the
organisational boundary, but our strategy on a day-to-day basis is to
work with local police officers. We have within our ranks more than 300
police officers who are seconded to the UK Border Agency local
immigration teams, which work directly in the communities. The hon.
Gentleman mentioned that border control is not just about the physical
border, but is about our towns, villages and countryside, as well as
urban
areas. Tom
Brake: I am not sure whether the Minister is about to
quote this figure, but I am sure he is painfully aware that, between
1997 and 2006, only 37 employers were found guilty of employing illegal
immigrants, although, as he is also probably aware, the
Government’s most recent estimate of illegal immigrant numbers,
which dates back to 2001, shows there are 430,000 of them. However,
only a rather small number of employers have been
prosecuted.
Mr.
Woolas: My argument is not that everything that has
happened since 1997 has been perfect. Indeed, I have been heavily
criticised, as the hon. Gentleman knows because he has done some of the
criticising—quite reasonably, because he is doing his job and I
do not
blame him for that—for criticising the past myself. The
sponsorship arrangements that are now in place allow the sponsor to be
held to account in a much better way than in the past. On the number of
raids, although I will not go into detail, the fact is that we are able
to carry out interventions in a much better way now. The critical point
is that we are utterly dependent on our partnership working with the
police forces to do raids on employers, for
example. The
new structures that we have put in place—the Bill is intended to
provide a statutory footing for the final pieces of the
jigsaw—are delivering successes, although not perhaps as many as
the public would like to see. Nevertheless, they are doing
so. On
the effectiveness of the action that we take with regard to employers,
under the fines that we have put in place we have now successfully,
through the civil penalties regime, issued 1,800 fines worth a
total of £18 million from February 2008 to the end of April this
year. Those fines do not just deter or punish the transgressors; they
deter others and, critically, they address the pull factor, which is a
major difficulty faced by this country, alongside border control, which
the people traffickers exploit. I accept the point made by the hon.
Member for Carshalton and
Wallington. My
argument is that the picture is not, as the hon. Member for Epsom and
Ewell has tried to paint it, one of failure, but one of growing
success. There is no disagreement in the Committee or the House on the
need to strengthen our borders. The argument is that there should be a
single unified agency for UK borders encompassing all immigration,
revenue, customs and police functions. The amendment that was tabled
and discussed in the other place and is replicated here would not bring
that
about. Lord
Stevens of Kirkwhelpington proposed an all-encompassing agency. I read
his report, which is serious not just because of his experience and the
fact that he is a serious member of the other place, but because it
addresses the argument in the Green Paper. At the time of the report,
the Border and Immigration Agency existed, but not the new UK Border
Agency, which incorporates HM Revenue and Customs. The key point in
Lord Stevens’s report is that HMRC and the Border and
Immigration Agency should be brought together with the agencies that he
listed. My argument is that evolution of the agency has brought a large
part of Lord Stevens’s intentions
together. To
repeat what my noble Friend said, we do not rule out the hon.
Gentleman’s proposition. It has merit, but we have some
important arguments about the organisation’s remit and the
organisational disruption that it could cause. Critically, we have
arguments about how best to obtain the co-operation in practice of the
existing 43 police authorities in England and Wales, the one in
Northern Ireland and the eight in Scotland. How can we get them to work
better with us? Our fear is that if we encompass all police functions
in the agency, it may be more difficult in practice to obtain the
assistance of local police
forces.
Mr.
Hamilton: The forces have evolved to where they
are, and some people will always oppose change, but the vast majority
of people whom the new force would consist of are the very people who
are there already, so
it would not be difficult to transfer into one structure. I suggest that
in the long term that must be the only way forward. Having one
structure makes more sense than having around 49
forces.
Mr.
Woolas: I point to two factors. The first is the
experience of the British Transport police. Many people, but not the
Government, argue that the British Transport police should be
integrated with local police forces, especially the Met.
On the second
factor, my hon. Friend was quite right when he said that many of the
schoolchildren he visits take foreign holidays. That is due to the
success of the economic policies of my right hon. Friend the Prime
Minister. Disposable income and wealth in this country have increased
as the economy has grown, and that has brought about greater overseas
travel—60 million of our citizens travel to France and Spain
every
year.
The
Chairman: Order. I hope that the Minister will connect
what he is saying with the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill.
He seems to have strayed a
little.
Mr.
Burns: He has gone on a
journey. 1.30
pm
Mr.
Woolas: How do we police the increase in global movement?
Some 285 million people travel in and out of the United Kingdom each
year, and that number is
growing. Let
me provide some examples of the practical co-operation between those
police forces and the UK Border Agency in my hon. Friend’s area.
In the aftermath of the Glasgow airport bombings, UKBA identified the
suspects together with the Strathclyde and Metropolitan police, and
provided the background information for the convictions that were
secured. The serious question that we have to ask—not just
wearing our party political hats, but as Members of
Parliament—is, would we be better equipped to secure such
convictions with a single force, as opposed to less co-operation with
the local police force, if that partnership was not embedded
in? Operation
Warren, again with Strathclyde police, dismantled the largest
sham-marriage scam in the United Kingdom—107
marriages—the main facilitator of which was convicted and
imprisoned. The second part of Warren secured the arrest and conviction
of another of the main organisers. On Operation Grange, which as my
hon. Friend knows was to do with the Moira Jones murder, the assistance
of UKBA was requested by Strathclyde police to help identify the
suspect. The hon. Member for Ashford will say that that co-operation
could exist, and of course it could, but my argument is about balance.
There are other examples, but I will not detain the Committee with
them. I
was talking about the Stevens report, which was undertaken at a time
when some of the major functions were not already brought together as
they are now. Indeed, on future recommendations, he said, in
proposal
5: “Administering
effective and efficient border security would require a range of
partnerships with international
bodies”, including
the Identity and Passport Service as well. We have not gone that far.
One can see that, from the viewpoint of UKBA, there would be some sense
in a
merger of the two. However, I am not sure whether that would make sense
from the viewpoint of a focused delivery of the passport service.
Again, I do not dismiss that idea; I take it
seriously. Proposal
2 in the report says that the border protection and security police
force would need warranted powers to stop, search and arrest for all
offences anywhere within the jurisdiction of the UK. That relates to
the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford about Totnes. Again, I
argue that by having a partnership with Devon
police—
Mr.
Burns: Devon and
Cornwall. Mr.
Woolas: Yes, it is one police authority; thank you. I do
not believe that if we had a national, single police force, either
within UKBA or parallel to it, its focus would mean, as proposal 2
suggests, that we would effectively be able to tackle the Totneses of
this
world. The
increasing success of the border controls for which I am attempting to
build consensus will increasingly highlight visa overstayers and
illegal immigrants. In future, the authorities will have much better,
more straightforward and comprehensive intelligence on those
overstayers that will help in enforcing that new policy and removing
illegal immigrants. But the resources that we will require to enforce
that policy, particularly from the point of view of deterrence and
addressing the pull factor, will involve even more co-operation with
the police authorities. That is an important
point. The
Green Paper, “From the neighbourhood to the national”,
consulted on what model of policing would best operate alongside UKBA
at our borders. We received a range of responses. It is true that
people in the police forces take different views. The hon. Member for
Ashford has prayed in aid some of those views, but I pray in aid the
official policy of ACPO. Its formal view remained in favour of a single
border police force, rather than an all-encompassing agency, so as a
half way between our two positions, there should be a force parallel to
UKBA.
Damian
Green: As both the Minister and the hon. Member for
Carshalton and Wallington pointed out, the new clause does specifically
what ACPO is talking about.
Mr.
Woolas: Except that the ACPO response acknowledged that
its preferred model would require much further work, planning, and,
critically, additional funding.
Kent
police—the hon. Gentleman’s force—forcibly rejects
the idea of a national force, which is probably why ACPO does not go
the whole hog. The Kent force has significant
experience—probably the most experience outside the Met and,
possibly, Thames Valley as well—and it does not wish to lose
that power.
The
Association of Police Authorities also strongly opposes the proposal
for a national border force. It can see the drawbacks, particularly
over the financing. Were we to provide for a new force in the
legislation, we would require detailed work on the funding. Would it
top slice local authorities’ council tax? How would it be paid
for? These are serious matters.
To answer the
hon. Member for Ashford, however, we must say what we are doing instead
that is better than his proposal. The work that we do with ACPO to
enhance the arrangements for our police borders is, therefore, of
critical importance. We have a phased approach to that work. First, it
focuses on counter-terrorism and special branch activity, developing
border policing with the police counter-terrorism network of dedicated
regional counter-terrorism units and counter-terrorism intelligence
units, which themselves sit alongside special branch. In that regard,
would we take just the special branch function into the UKBA, or would
we leave it separate? Again, there would be a demarcation line. The
next phase is to improve consistency of standards and better
co-ordination of border policing, and then to build on our existing
collaborative approach with other agencies.
The ACPO
president was recently in correspondence with the Minister for
Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing about the shape of that
programme of work. By its very nature, some of that activity is not
visible to the public; much of special branch’s work is,
necessarily, not in the public eye. However, we in the Home Office, and
the leadership of the police service, with whom we are engaged on the
work, are clear that tangible improvements to public safety have
resulted from it. The work is in the context of our Contest
strategy.
The proposals
refer to arrangements with the police. Central to our strategy is the
idea of—indeed the existence of—immigration crime
partnerships. They are being put into place around the country and
involve UKBA staff locally with local authorities. As I have said, the
key to resisting illegal immigration is the pull factor. We believe
local crime partnerships are the best way to deal with it; for
instance, UKBA staff are embedded in police counter-trafficking teams
at Heathrow. I have already mentioned Paladin; experienced detectives
from the child abuse investigation command of the Metropolitan police
are working with us. UKBA officers are embedded in the human
trafficking centre in Sheffield, where their immigration experience and
knowledge adds significant value. Since 2007, all border force staff
have been required to complete a training package designed to help
identify traffickers and their victims.
We believe
that those local immigration crime partnerships are better at getting
the necessary co-operation with police forces. There is another
significant advantage of that approach, which I fear is lacking from
the Lord Stevens approach—it is a question of balance and
judgment. That advantage is our ability to use immigration law in the
wider fight against crime.
We all know
that the people who organise crime in our country do not just organise
one bit of crime. They do not just do illegal trafficking and let
another gang do drugs and another gang do cash laundering, so breaking
those criminal gangs has to be done with that in mind. To have a police
force that concentrates just on immigration and customs—in fact,
a fairly wide remit—does not address the point that to break
those gangs a wider focus is needed on the gang than on the activity. I
mentioned earlier the Eliot Ness strategy—the gangster Al Capone
was caught by a tax accountant, not by a police officer. In that
respect, there is a parallel.
As my noble
Friend said in the other place, there are compelling arguments for our
proposal. There is the argument that I first used about the disruptive
effect that it would have were it to take place immediately. I refer
the Committee to the comments of the hon. Member for Ashford when we
discussed clause 3 on Tuesday morning. He was addressing the amendment
about the designation of general customs officers. He made a consistent
statement of conservative philosophy, with which I have some sympathy:
“If it ain’t bust don’t fix it”. He
said:
“While
we are discussing the amendment, this would be an appropriate time for
the Minister to give us an update on the progress of the merger of the
organisations, because he will be more aware than I am that HMRC and
UKBA are two very separate organisations with different cultures that
he is trying to bring together. One hears of stresses and strains,
which is not surprising and is entirely normal, but certainly those
stresses and strains are there...Are those different groups of
people, with their different training, backgrounds and organisational
cultures, actually working together smoothly, or could that be best
described as a work in
progress?”——[Official Report, Borders,
Citizenship and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2009; c.
20.] The
hon. Gentleman went on to say that there were many practical issues. He
was right, and just as he was right about the general transfer of
duties, I am right about the fact that if we brought the police force
into the UKBA at this stage of its evolution, we would cause chaos. I
pray in aid the good old-fashioned principle of “If it
ain’t broke, don’t fix
it”.
| 
