Clause 54
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
We will have that debate later. The Government’s response is that the measure relates to police powers. We are trying to knit together the two so that police forces, which would not be part of the UKBA under the proposals of the hon. Member for Ashford, also have a role working with the UKBA. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UKBA is as it says—immigration is not a devolved matter.
On the specifics, a designated immigration officer may search a detained individual for potential weapons and anything that might be used to assist escape. If, during the course of such a search, the official finds anything that might be evidence of the commission of an offence, he or she must retain that evidence. A designated immigration officer will also be able to use reasonable force when exercising that power.
The extension of the powers to Scotland will mean that this important measure will cover the whole United Kingdom. In other words, our strategy is to bring police-like powers into the agency for a more effective partnership with the police. It is important to point out that we are talking about the power to detain, not the power to arrest.
The measure could be used for non-immigration, criminal purposes. In other words, if the immigration official suspects that someone is wanted for arrest in Scotland, or that someone is on a watch list, they can detain them and call the police, who can then decide whether to go and arrest them.
Let me turn specifically to amendment 59, which is probing. During the passage of the UK Borders Bill, the detention at ports powers generated much debate and correspondence on four issues: first, immigration officers getting police-like powers; secondly, the non-application of PACE codes of practice to the exercise of the powers; thirdly, the designation criteria and adequacy of the training, which we covered earlier; and, fourthly, the non-application of the powers to Scotland. The amendment—the hon. Member for Ashford does not claim otherwise—would have no practical effect on the threshold that designated officials apply when deciding whether the use of the detention power is appropriate. Rather, it addresses what constitutes a reason for a person to detain an individual and call the police. I am advised that it would introduce an inconsistency in the application of the power depending on whether it was being exercised in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or in Scotland, but I concede that it would make no practical difference to the operation of the power.
The amendment would require a designated officer at a port in Scotland to have a reasonable suspicion that an individual might be the subject of an arrest warrant. Meanwhile, a similar officer in England, Wales or Northern Ireland may detain an individual if he or she simply thinks that a person might be the subject of any such warrant.