Clause 32
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]
9:00 am
Crispin Blunt (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Reigate, Conservative)
I am glad to hear that.
One of the things that make the Minister such an attractive personality in our politics is his ability to explain things in simple, straightforward, layman terms when they might otherwise be presented in the complicated language beloved of bureaucrats and legislators. It is on such a matter that I would like him to assist us on clause 32. I am not entirely sure what the clause proposes, and why it does so, so I have a few questions. It is a sensible principle that a Committee should have a collective idea of what legislation involves before it is passed.
First, what is drawback? Secondly, clause 32(4) provides for commissioners to make payments to the director or the Secretary of State, while the main provision of the clause is to arrange for the director of border revenue to pay money to the commissioners. Under what circumstances is it anticipated that the commissioners will have to start making payments to the director or the Secretary of State? Thirdly, why is there a requirement for subsection (5), which states that subsection (4) applies
“whether or not the reason for a deficiency is or may be that an amount has been paid or retained on the basis of an estimate that has proved or may prove to be inaccurate”?
I do not understand why such clarification is needed, so I would be grateful for an explanation. Finally, when is a payment to be treated as a repayment?