Clause 120 - Power to search for evidence
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
6:45 pm
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 335, in page 63, line 40, leave out from ''if'' to end of line 41 and insert
''on application made by an immigration officer a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing''.
Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 312, in page 63, line 41, after ''officer'', insert
''is in possession of a warrant to search and''.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
This is another in the family of ''seek a warrant from a justice of the peace'' amendments, in common with the one that we have just debated. We are seeking to tease out the reason why the Government feel that the powers in the first part of the clause should not require prior judicial scrutiny, whereas a JP's warrant is required in the second part of the clause. We suggest that there should be a stage of demonstrating to a JP that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the records need to be recovered from most premises.
In general, as a matter of principle, we feel much more comfortable when a JP's warrant is required to pick up sensitive information and employee records. We will later debate the scope of the employee records phase, but employee records are sensitive material. I want to hear the Minister's justification of why a JP's warrant should not be required under all circumstances, if one is going in to search for evidence of such a sensitive nature.
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
The clause inserts two new sections into the Immigration Act 1971. Both refer back to earlier clauses. Where an immigration offender has been arrested on business premises, there is an additional power to allow a constable or immigration officer to search the premises for employee records when he believes that an offence has been committed.
Put simply, given the time of evening that we have reached, if we have to go for more warrants, the likelihood in many cases is that the records for which the search is being made will disappear while the warrant process is being undertaken. The important thing is that records thought to be of substantial value
to the investigation of an offence of failing to disclose the required information, or of dishonesty on the part of the asylum seeker, may be seized and retained at a time when we know that they are there, without giving those who are profiting from exploitative labour and illegal work the chance to dispose of the evidence before we get our hands on it.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
We remain concerned about any provisions that allow searching to take place without further oversight, but at this stage I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 336, in page 64, line 1, leave out 'employee records' and insert 'records of that employee.'
Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 337, in page 64, line 6, leave out 'employee records' and insert 'records of that employee.'
No. 338, in page 64, line 14, leave out 'employee records' and insert 'records of that employee.'
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
The amendments are designed to refine the scope of the records that could be removed from the premises. In particular, we are aiming to confine the material that may be taken away to the records of the employee who has been arrested for the immigration offences. The rationale behind that is that we feel uncomfortable about a provision that would seem to allow the officers to take away all the employee records from premises where perhaps only one individual has been arrested for an immigration offence. In being fair to others who work there who may have committed no offence whatever, we feel that it would be more appropriate if the wording of the law said that it was the records of that specific employee—the one who had been arrested—that can be taken away rather than the records of all the employees in general.
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
Currently, all the records can be searched, and it is unlikely that a specific immigration offender's records would be separate. If other immigration offenders came to light during a search for an individual's records, would it not be a reasonable idea to allow them to be looked at too? That is not unreasonable when we are looking to crack down on illegal working. It is in the public interest to crack down on illegal working.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
Again, we remain concerned. The Minister has talked about searching through the records, but the word ''retention'' is importantly contained in the clause. The officer would have the power not only to search through the records but to seize and retain them. That is the point at which we become concerned. It may appear easier to an immigration officer to take the lot away and look through them later, but that means a lot of innocent employees will have their records removed from the premises.
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
We cannot seize records if no offence has been committed. If an offence has been committed, records are liable to be seized as evidence.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I do not want to labour the point, because we have little time. [Hon Members: ''Then don't.''] We will return to the point again, but the Minister has said that the records will not be seized unless an offence has been committed. We accept that an offence will have to have been committed. What we are querying is whether the records belong to the offender. That remains an open question under the existing wording.
In order to facilitate progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 121 to 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.