Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

We can always count on my noble friend Lord Listowel to bring us back to the reality when we are discussing these clauses. There is a widespread concern that the Part 8 powers of the 1999 Act are being extended. If you ask a member of the public they would be surprised to find plain clothes individuals in this role; why not recruit enough police or customs officers? Why is it necessary to give a private contractor the right not just to check a person but to detain a person for as long as three hours? That is my serious point. I have a less serious point on behalf of the Constitution Committee about the language of the Bill. The noble Baroness will remember the letter written by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, on behalf of the Constitution Committee on 13 December, where he says:"““The language used for the authorisation, in Clause 40, of the contracting out of powers of search to a person other than a constable or a Revenue and Customs officer is in one respect less than ideal. The clause allows the Secretary of State to appoint someone whom he ‘thinks’ is fit and proper for the purpose. We would be glad to know the reason why this expression is used rather than a term such as ‘is satisfied that’, which the courts would generally interpret as requiring there to be a reasonable and objective basis for the Secretary of State’s decision””." The Minister replied in her letter later in December:"““You queried the choice of language in clause 40 . . . The use of the word ‘thinks’ in this clause is not intended to lessen the obligation on the Secretary of State when considering whether to appoint someone other than a constable or Revenue and Customs officer. The Secretary of State will be bound by public law to ensure that his decision is reasonable and objective and properly considers all relevant considerations and disregards irrelevant considerations. In our view there is no legal difference between the use of ‘thinks’ and a phrase such as ‘is satisfied that’. The use of ‘thinks’ is intended to use plain English which will be understandable to lay readers. This is part of a general intention to use plain English when drafting legislation.""Section 154 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 does use the phrase ““is satisfied that”” in relation to the authorisation by the Secretary of State of detainee custody officers. While the provisions on detainee custody officers are similar to clause 40 of the Bill we do not feel that that was sufficient reason to depart from using plain English””." I rest my case with the Minister’s answer. I cannot understand how legal officers could give the advice that the phrase ““is satisfied that”” is the same as ““thinks that””. I have broken my rule not to mention the Constitution Committee again this week because the meeting of the committee is tomorrow. I leave it at that.