Clause 54
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 54, page 44, line 18, leave out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reasonable suspicion.’.
It is with some trepidation that I ever step into the potential quagmire of the relationship of legislation to Scotland, which is always particularly sensitive in front of hon. Members from Scottish constituencies. However, there is and has always been a difficulty with immigration legislation and Scotland since the devolution settlement, the requirements of Sewel and so on.
Those of us who are veterans of the 2007 Bill will remember that there were problems at the time, because the Government could not persuade the then Scottish Executive to do what they wanted, which was particularly ironic because in those days the Scottish Executive was run by the Labour party. I remember asking at the time what would happen if things were like this then—what would happen if perchance Scotland ever found itself with an Administration run by another party, as we now have. I assume that is why we have what is being firmly written into UK-wide, non-devolved legislation—to ensure that we do not have such problems.
The specific issue addressed by our amendment, which simply removes “thinks” and inserts “has reasonable suspicion”, is to probe what the Minister means. “Thinks” seems to be a word that is not particularly suited for legislation. It would appear to allow an immigration officer incredibly wide powers if he “thinks” something about an individual. The phrase “has reasonable suspicion” would not only have more legal force but would be somewhat more precise. Frankly, it would also be less likely to give rise to future challenges under various provisions in human rights legislation. Whatever we write into the Bill, the Minister will be aware that it can be challenged under various other Acts that Parliament has passed, notably the Human Rights Act. Simply allowing an immigration officer to “think” something about an individual when it is not clear that they would have a “reasonable suspicion” that that person was subject to a warrant for arrest, which is what the clause says at the moment, is problematic. The definition just seems to be rather wide and rather woolly. I could be disabused of that view by the Minister, but I would like some sort of explanation as to why there is this particular wording in the clause.