Clause 23
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]
5:00 pm
Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 23, page 18, line 6, leave out subsection (5) and add—
‘(5) A designated immigration officer or a designated customs official at a port in England, Wales or Northern Ireland may detain an individual if the immigration officer thinks that the individual—
(a) may be liable to arrest by a constable under section 24(1), (2), or (3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) or Article 26(1), (2) or (3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)), or
(b) is subject to a warrant for arrest.
(6) A designated immigration officer who detains an individual—
(a) must arrange for a constable to attend as soon as is reasonably practicable;
(b) may search the individual for, and retain, anything that might be used to assist escape or to cause physical injury to the individual or another person;
(c) must retain anything found on a search which the immigration officer thinks may be evidence of the commission of an offence; and
(d) must, when the constable arrives, deliver to the constable the individual and anything retained on a search.
(7) A designated immigration officer may use reasonable force for the purpose of exercising a power under this section.
(8) Where an individual whom a designated immigration officer has detained or attempted to detain under this section leaves the port, a designated immigration officer may—
(a) pursue the individual, and
(b) return the individual to the port.
(9) Detention under this section shall be treated as detention under the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) for the purposes of Part 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33).’.
I am tremendously confident of a positive response from the Minister on this amendment because it comes word from word from his draft Bill, so I am not seeking to make the Government do anything that they did not want to do themselves last summer. No doubt had they had the legislative time, we would have been debating this with the Minister proposing it rather than me. Being always fair-minded in my opposition, I am sure that I would not have been proposing any amendments to it. The amendment fits very well with the existing Bill. Clearly, there were large parts of the draft Bill that are in other parts of the immigration field and would sit very strangely in this Bill. I believe that this amendment rounds off the existing clause rather effectively. It inserts a number of new sections, which describe why a designated immigration officer may detain an individual. It also sets out the rules about how the designated immigration officer should arrange for a constable to attend, carry out searches, retain any material taken and deliver to the constable what has been taken from the individual. It would allow reasonable force and allow the immigration officer to pursue the individual, and return the individual to the port.
Given that thousands more people will have those potential powers, it is important that we set out the rules regarding detention at port. Indeed, I am slightly surprised that that segment of the draft Bill did not survive, because it seems to fit very well with this part of the Bill and it fits seamlessly into clause 23, which is about immigration and detention. The amendment makes specific the debate that we have just had about the application of the PACE rules and safeguards. In themselves, they are very important, but it would make them more real and bring home as a practicality what we mean when we talk about a rigorous code of practice and conduct for officers at the border.
Even if we accept—we never have done—the Minister saying that amendment 13 would introduce some inconsistencies into the application of the PACE rules, amendment 14 certainly would not. It sets out the sort of powers and protections that are available already in such legislation, so it genuinely would provide great confidence to those who have doubts about the appropriateness and powers of the protection that is available. These are specific. They would be in the Bill. People would know where they stood. They would know, first, the powers of the immigration officer, and secondly, the limits and constraints on those powers; both are perfectly admirable intentions of any such piece of legislation. As I said, I do not need to persuade the Minister. These would have been his words in other circumstances, so I hope that he can persuade himself that it is a good amendment.