Clause 1
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]
10:30 am

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 17, after ‘section’ insert ‘(other than in subsection (8))’.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 19 to 26.

Amendment 15, in clause 26, page 20, line 8, leave out from ‘State’ to end of line and insert ‘or the Director’.

Government amendment 29.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

I beg your forgiveness, Sir Nicholas, because I would like to put the amendments in the context of the clause.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

I am most grateful to the Minister for having discussed this matter with me already. I am very happy for the mover of an amendment—in this case, the Minister—on occasion to explain the purpose of the relevant clause. That might remove the necessity of a clause stand part debate, which may often go over matters that have already been discussed. If it allows for proper scrutiny, I am happy for the clause to be described in general at the beginning of a group of amendments.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

Thank you very much, Sir Nicholas.

The Committee will be aware that the clause is a key component of part 1 of the Bill. Part 1 runs from clause 1 to clause 38 and deals with the UK Border Agency. In essence, it proposes that we put on a statutory footing the merger of the customs functions taken from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the immigration functions taken from the Border and Immigration Agency, previously known as the immigration and nationality directorate.

Clause 1 relates to the general customs functions of the Secretary of State. Bringing the functions together will increase the UK Border Agency’s effectiveness in tackling smuggling, illegal immigration and other cross-border crime. Providing more flexibility and powers for the deployment of officers in tackling those threats at the border will enhance border security and therefore the protection of our country.

The clause will give the Secretary of State the power to exercise general customs functions concurrently with the commissioners for Revenue And Customs. The clause specifically prevents the Secretary of State from exercising any of the commissioners’ revenue functions or any of their non-revenue functions that are not relevant to the UK Border Agency’s role, such as their work inland regulating bureaux de change and other money businesses. There is a transfer of powers from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I think that the Committee will be satisfied that the Bill contains the necessary safeguards, which are there already for Revenue and Customs.

I will explain the derivation and impact of the amendments before us. The Bill has been subject to significant scrutiny. I am a big fan of pre-legislative scrutiny—and, for the record, post-legislative scrutiny.  The House would be wise to do more of that. The hon. Member for Ashford has mentioned the draft Bill. The short Bill before us is not the complete jigsaw puzzle. The draft Bill that has been scrutinised in part by the Select Committee will be brought back to the House with proposals. The Bill we are considering is a Lords Bill. It started in the Lords and has been scrutinised there.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I apologise for interrupting the Minister when he is only just getting into his flow. When he says that the draft Bill is coming back, does he mean that the simplification Bill in the next Session will include everything in the draft Bill?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

Yes. The draft Bill will come back as the simplification Bill. That is an attempt to have a comprehensive Bill.

True to our word, we have listened to the other place. The Government amendments will refine the clause in response to the noble Lords’ debate and some of their suggestions. Never let it be said that the Government are inflexible in the face of good scrutiny. What is perhaps confusing for hon. Members is that some of the amendments do not relate to clause 1. However, it was wise to put them together.

Let me explain the purpose of these amendments. I advise the Committee to resist amendment 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford, who will no doubt explain his proposition. The purpose of my amendments is to clarify the extent of the customs functions that may be exercised by, first, the Secretary of State, and secondly, the director of border revenue—we will debate who that should be in further clauses and amendments—as well as designated customs officials. Specifically, the Government amendments make clear that these functions include customs functions under European Community law. The amendments follow scrutiny in the other place and we believe they are necessary to ensure that the remit of the UK Border Agency, in respect of the exercise of its new customs functions, is clear and that adjustments can be made to exclude or include particular functions as appropriate from the definition of general customs functions.

This is necessary for two reasons. First, clause 1 enables the Secretary of State to exercise the functions of the commissioners for Revenue and Customs concurrently with them in relation to general customs matters. The term “general customs matters” may draw in certain functions already exercisable by the Secretary of State and there is, therefore, a need to ensure that other provisions in the Bill, such as the information provisions covered in clauses 14 to 20, apply only to the functions of the commissioners which the Secretary of State will be able to exercise under the Bill. Secondly, it is necessary to ensure that the information clauses apply to customs functions exercisable directly under Community law. Specifically, amendments 18 and 19 amend the meaning for the purposes of part 1 of the Bill of “general customs functions”. They clarify the extent of these exercisable by the Secretary of State and the general customs officials. The effect of the amendment is to make clear that the relevant customs functions are, first, those that are exercisable by virtue of clause 1 and clause 3; secondly, those that are conferred on either the  Secretary of State or general customs officials by virtue of clauses 22 to 24; and thirdly, those under Community law. The amendment also ensures that the information clauses in the Bill apply to all of these functions.

Amendment 20, the third one in the group, is related and consequential to amendments 18 and 19.

Amendment 21 is similarly consequential to amendments 18 and 19 and adjusts, confusingly, perhaps, Sir Nicholas, if you are still with me—

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

I am.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

—clause 5 to reflect the new definition of “general customs functions”, which we are discussing in clause 1. Amendment 22 is similar in its purpose and effect to amendments 18 and 19. It amends clause 7 to clarify the extent of the customs revenue functions which may be exercised by the director of border revenue and customs revenue officials. Amendments 23, 24 and 25 are consequential to amendment 22 and change respectively clauses 9, 10 and 13 to reflect the new definition in clause 7 that I just referred to. Amendment 26 is related to the other amendments in this group. It clarifies that clause 26—which provides for transfer schemes to be made by HMRC—applies to things done by the Secretary of State, director of border revenue or designated customs officials in connection with the relevant function as previously exercised by the commissioners or an officer of Revenue and Customs including things done under Community law.

Amendment 29 amends clause 38 to provide interpretation for the term Community law for the purposes of part 1 of the Bill. That interpretation is necessary, I am advised, to make clear the meaning of that term which is now used in clauses 1 and 7 as a result of amendments 18, 19 and 22. In short, in order to transfer the powers of customs to the new set-up, the new agency—the Secretary of State, the director of border revenue, who we propose to be the chief executive officer of the UK Border Agency, and designated officials under her—we need clarity in the definition of those powers, and that is what the amendment brings.

If I may, Sir Nicholas, I would like to ask the Committee to consider the arguments on amendment 15. The hon. Member for Ashford will explain what he is trying to do here better than I can, but removing designated customs officials from the definition of a relevant function, for the purposes of the transfer of the scheme’s provisions in clause 26, would not achieve what we want to see. Clause 26(7) defines a relevant function as:

“A function conferred by...this Part on the Secretary of State, the Director or a designated customs official”.

Under the amendment, a transfer scheme could not operate so as to transfer things done by the commissioners or revenue and customs officers in relation to functions conferred by the Bill on designated customs officials. Proceedings on other matters done or started by an officer, such as seizure actions, could not be treated as done and continued by a designated customs officer. The scheme would only work, therefore, in respect of functions transferred to the Secretary of State or the director of border revenue, rather than their officers.

I hope I have explained the purpose of the amendments as clearly as possible. At this early stage of the Bill’s proceedings I ask for the trust of the Committee and  will try to clarify any explanation that I may have inadequately given. However, I assure you, Sir Nicholas that the amendments result from a very deep consideration of the points made in the other place. I therefore urge the Committee to support the Government amendments and to consider the argument of the hon. Member for Ashford on amendment 15.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for that tour de force of clarity in the face of some opposition from the words in front of him. I was remiss in not congratulating him on still sitting there and retaining his post, in the light of recent events. Whether he is as delighted as I am still to be there—[Interruption.] I apologise, Sir Nicholas. If it is any consolation to the Committee, it was my wife. I apologise.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

I am glad the mobile phone was on silent—ish.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

Ish. Moving swiftly on, Sir Nicholas.

Before I address the detail of what the Minister said, I would like to return to the point I raised in my intervention. The Minister said that the draft Bill, of which this Bill was a small part, will now become the simplification Bill. I am genuinely puzzled and hope that in the course of our discussions he can explain the purpose of introducing the simplification Bill, which we know is hundreds of clauses long and very complex, at this stage of the parliamentary cycle where, whatever happens, it is extremely unlikely to complete its course before a general election that has to take place by May or June of next year. It seems a bizarre use of parliamentary time.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

That is because we are going to win.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

The Minister says from a sedentary position that the Labour party is going to win the next election. The British people will decide, as they did last week. He knows that if Parliament is dissolved the Bill will fall, and even if he is still sitting there in a year’s time, he will have to reintroduce it. I am genuinely puzzled as to what the organisational purpose is of introducing it now.

Before I test your patience any longer, Sir Nicholas, let me turn to the Conservative amendments and the many Government amendments. On looking at the amendment paper, the Committee might reasonably have been disturbed to find 10 Government amendments to clause 1 of this Government’s eighth immigration Bill. That does not build confidence, and I was even more exercised by the papers from outside lobby groups and others, in which one of the first amendments proposed to Opposition parties was to delete the whole of part 1. I had felt that this was one of the less controversial parts of the Bill, yet there are those outside who wish the whole part deleted, and the Government have tabled multiple amendments to their own legislation.

It is not as alarming as all that, as some of the amendments clearly derive, as the Minister has said, from some good debates in another place. We should be grateful to their lordships for the scrutiny they have applied to the Bill, and from which this group of amendments derives. I am particularly glad that in this instance Ministers appear to have listened to their lordships, because I think that some of the more contentious  debates that we will have in Committee will arise from the Government trying to reverse the votes taken in another place.

As the Minister has made clear, this group of amendments deals with the extension of the powers of customs officers and immigration officers and the proper way to exercise those powers. We are talking about the general customs function and it is reasonable to ask for a substantial explanation of that function. It was the focus of much of the debate in another place, and the Minister has struggled manfully with that. Government amendment 19 in particular, however, seems to be close to saying that a general customs function is what Ministers say it is:

“a function that is exercisable—

(i) by the Secretary of State by virtue of this section, or

(ii) by general customs officials”.

That is to say, that one can tell that it is a general customs function because it is being exercised by customs officials. I feel that that is never an entirely satisfactory way of defining something in legislation. It is not immediately clear what functions would be included or excluded from the range of general customs functions by way of the amendment. This is the right part of the Bill in which to ask these questions, and perhaps to ask the Minister to state, when he sums up, what general customs functions he is talking about, in practical terms. I am sure that we could all sit down and make a list of what we think general customs functions would be, but it would be extremely useful to have that on the record. I encourage the Minister to make clear reference to the functions for the commissioners for Revenue and Customs, and to tell us which functions should be included or excluded from the general customs functions—general customs matters, as they are referred to elsewhere in the Bill.

One of the reasons why it is important to establish great clarity at this stage is that we should be clear that the amendments give extra powers to the Secretary of State, and through him to immigration officials. The question of whether those powers are exercised by appropriately trained people lies at the heart of the debate about the changes within the UK Border Agency and HMRC. To some extent, there is no great divide across the House on that. We agree that there has been too great a diversity—an incoherence, indeed—of people with powers at the border, and we all want more cross-cutting powers. As the Committee will discuss later, the Conservatives favour a proper integrated border police force so that the powers will be exercised by trained police officers, which would help to alleviate the problem. Before we get to that, however, when powers are being shared and spread around, as they will be under the amendments, it is legitimate to ask about the new functions and the new powers that they represent, and about who will be exercising those powers.

Effectively, the customs officials’ powers, which are extremely broad, are being shared out to immigration officers. As the Minister will be aware, customs officials can undertake a very wide range of extremely intrusive activities. The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 confers many of those functions and powers. Under that Act, a customs officer may ask to search a person or anything they have with them if he or she reasonably  suspects that the person is carrying any item that is prohibited or restricted, or any item that is liable to excise duty or tax that has not been paid. Furthermore, officials have the power to detain a person for as long as is reasonably necessary while the search is being carried out. If a person does not agree to that search, a customs official may make an arrest. I am going into detail because it is worth the Committee considering the full extent of the powers that customs officials have when they are being shared around.

The threshold for the reasonable suspicion that a customs officer needs to have is very low and can include a combination of factors, including the origin of a person’s journey, their clothing and any unusual quantity of luggage. The threshold is low and the intrusive powers are great. Searches can include searches of pockets, a rub-down, a strip search or an intimate search. The powers available to customs officers also include forfeiture powers, powers to enter premises, and powers of search and seizure. This measure extends those powers to UKBA staff, who will be able to carry out physical examinations at the frontier, both of their own volition and at the direction of HMRC.

On top of those things, customs officials have the capacity to take fingerprints and DNA, and they can seize money under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. They have surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and data acquisition and sharing powers under the Identity Cards Act 2006, the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Serious Crime Act 2007.

At this stage of our proceedings, we ought to have some kind of reassurance from the Minister that the extension of the powers, which are very extensive and intrusive, is being handled properly and that they are being extended to people who are properly trained and equipped to deal with them. I hope that the Minister addresses in detail whether the clause could provide that the extension does not apply to section 164 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, which allows customs officers, and therefore, one would assume, immigration officers, the powers to undertake intimate searches.

A number of other customs powers appear not to bear any relationship to immigration, and it is legitimate to ask the Minister whether they should have been exempted or why they are necessary for the proper control of immigration. The idea of greater coherence is good in principle, as I said, and obviously it almost goes without saying that Members on both sides of the Committee want a better controlled immigration system. However, I have genuine worries, as do others, about some of the details and the possible spread of powers to people who are not properly trained in exercising them.

I tabled amendment 15 to probe the Government’s intentions. It would restrict the power of the Secretary of State or the director of border revenue to designate any official to carry out those customs functions. The Minister has already said that he does not accept the amendment as he thinks that it would be unduly restrictive. I accept that it is designed to be restrictive, but it was tabled precisely to explore the full extent of the extension and sharing of power that he proposes. I am sure that he will accept that that point applies not only to the clause and the amendments, but to the whole of part 1. While we proceed along this path—which we both agree  is one we should go down—it is all the more important to ensure that we do not extend intrusive powers unnecessarily, as there are important matters of civil liberties to consider.

In principle, the Conservative party believes that there is not enough coherence between the many agencies that currently operate at our borders. The Government have been anxious for a couple of years to look as though they are setting up a single border force. They do not actually seem to be doing so, but I suppose that we should count our blessings where we can. The fact that the Government seek to move in that direction is better than the reverse would be. In that context, we are not hostile in principle to the Government’s intentions in the clause, but I would welcome the clarifications that I have sought from the Minister about the detailed practical effects of the general customs function, and of the extension of powers proposed in his amendments.

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I support the general principle behind what the Government seek to achieve by better integrating aspects of customs and immigration. The Liberal Democrat party favours a UK border force similar to that advocated by the Conservative spokesman, but we would also combine police powers. However, we are supportive of the general principle behind what the Government seek to do.

Like the hon. Member for Ashford, we have concerns about the extent to which general customs functions are being extended. He did a good job of outlining the powers available to customs officers and noting the reasons why there need to be suitable safeguards in place and training available. I hope that the Minister will be specific about what grade of officers will have those powers and whether the level of training that they receive will be comparable to that provided to customs officers. I hope that hon. Members will get some reassurance that the people who take on these extensive—and in some cases intrusive—powers, will be suitably qualified for the job.

I support the description given by the hon. Member for Ashford of amendment 15 as a general probing amendment designed to get the Government to be more specific in explaining how the powers will be extended and the extent to which that is happening. I hope that hon. Members can have some reassurance that the provision is within the spirit of what we are all trying to achieve, but does not provide extensive powers that we would feel uncomfortable with should they be exercised by people who were not suitably trained, or who had powers beyond what would be considered acceptable. I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s response, particularly in relation to amendment 15, and hope that it is satisfactory.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

Those questions were entirely reasonable, and some were powerful. I shall try to answer them.

First, I must make it clear that we are talking about general customs functions, as distinct from customs revenue functions. The revenue functions, established under HMRC, have a relationship to Ministers that is different from general customs functions, which we shall deal with under clause 6 and elsewhere. Ministers cannot be involved in customs financial revenue functions, just as we cannot be involved in Inland Revenue functions. That is quite right, and I hope that it always remains so.

The director of border revenue, whom we propose to be the chief executive of UKBA—the “accountable officer” is a phrase with which Members will be familiar—would deal exclusively with customs revenue functions such as the collection and enforcement of excise duties on imported alcohol and tobacco, the collection and enforcement of customs duties more generally, import VAT, and the prevention of smuggling of goods liable to VAT and excise and customs duties.

The hon. Member for Ashford asked me to give some examples of what is meant in the real world by general customs. Seizing criminal cash is a common function. Others include preventing unsafe products being imported into the UK; maintaining sanctions on countries and arms embargos; reducing and deterring trade in endangered species of animals and plants; control of commercial vessels and ships coming into our ports; preventing the importation of offensive weapons such as knives, daggers and so on; preventing the importation of obscene or indecent material, particularly child pornography; preventing the introduction of pest and diseases harmful to animals and/or humans, such as foot and mouth, bird flu and fowl plague; preventing the import and export of controlled drugs; and preventing chemical weapons, toxic chemicals and so on from coming into the UK and being obtained by terrorist organisations. That is not an exhaustive list, but they are the main headings under the general customs functions.

Few new powers are given under part 1. Those powers mentioned are existing customs powers. The hon. Member for Ashford got the point about UKBA, but he is right that the powers, if designated to officials, will include what are currently the powers of immigration officers. I have answered his question directly.

The Secretary of State already has the power to put in place effective border controls relating to immigration matters, and although the Bill’s provisions extend the functions of the Home Secretary to include the general customs matters that I have listed, they do not create new substantive powers. Instead, the provisions simply allow the exercise of existing powers by the Home Secretary and his officials rather than by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. More importantly, and to reassure the Committee, they do not result in any loss of border control powers when transferring functions from Revenue and Customs to the Border Agency.

On the specific point being quietly pushed by the hon. Members for Ashford and for Carshalton and Wallington, immigration officers at ports—I include airports in that—have a wide range of powers to operate immigration control and tackle immigration-related crime. Part of our strategy is exactly to use immigration powers to tackle immigration-related crime. It is what inside UKBA we call the Elliott Ness strategy, and very effective it is, too.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

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?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

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.

David Hamilton (Midlothian, Labour)

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.

Simon Burns (Whip, Whips; West Chelmsford, Conservative)

That is what we think.

David Hamilton (Midlothian, Labour)

I do not agree with the Tories though.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

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.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

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—

Simon Burns (Whip, Whips; West Chelmsford, Conservative)

Friend.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

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 (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

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 (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

If the question is on the same point, I will.

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

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?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

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 (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

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?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)

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.

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.