Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

My Lords, we had an interesting debate on this amendment in Committee but I am still at a loss to understand—despite the Minister’s long reply, for which I thank him—why the Government are going to such lengths to create only half of what is necessary to establish the security of our borders. The reason for returning to this issue is not to be stubborn but because I am genuinely puzzled as to why the Government have proceeded with the provisions in all 37 clauses in Part 1 to bring together personnel from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs with those already employed on immigration, to increase the role of both in providing support to the UK Border Agency, which deals with customs and immigration but has no incorporated police element. I understand the need for this legislation, which has clearly been brought about with some speed because the UK Border Agency, which includes personnel from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, is already operating in shadow form. The implementation process of Part 1 must proceed if the moves, which have already been made, are to have any legal force. The cart of opportunism seems to have been put before the horse of coherence. My party gives no ground to anyone in its determination to see that our borders are policed and administered in such a way as to protect our island from terrorism, serious crime, trafficking, drugs and all the other aspects of crime, including unauthorised immigration, which the Minister laid out in his response to the debate in Committee. In this regard, we believe that the powers should be enlarged to extend the remit of the border force to investigate those who may be encouraging illegal immigration and to ensure that those who come here and have no right to remain are removed—something that is singularly lacking under present arrangements and which is surely germane to the control of who is in this country. There is no disagreement between my party and the Government about the need for robust and foolproof measures. There is, however, a mismatch between us on who should be involved in carrying them out. I was grateful in Committee for the almost support of the Liberal Democrats, who tacitly agree that a unified border force should be the ultimate goal. Although their ideas may not run along identical tracks to ours, they seem to be somewhat closer to our view than the Government’s. I ask the Government again why this is so. It is abundantly clear from the Minister’s long reply in Committee that huge efforts are having to be made to ensure that the police are working not as an integral part of the border agency but at a tangent to it. The Minister referred to a senior chief constable being a member of the UK Border Agency’s board. He also told us that 280 police officers had been seconded to local immigration teams, ""up and down our country".—[Official Report, 25/2/09; col. 213.]" However, this is a tiny part of what needs to be done in a united and cohesive way. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, conducted a detailed inquiry for David Cameron into the safety and security of our borders. It is a published document of which I am sure the Home Office, if not the Minister, has had sight. Although a little time has passed since it was produced, the noble Lord’s observations remain relevant today. He said that, ""failure to take this opportunity to bring all the services involved in securing the border together in a single agency carries several challenges"." I will not go into all the challenges that the noble Lord mentioned, but it is worth citing a few: the lack of a comprehensive overarching strategy; inefficiency in the sharing of information and the development of intelligence; a focus on narrow issues that have an impact on the work of individual agencies rather than a focus on the overall UK border security effort; and the inefficient use of resources, both human and financial. He concluded in this part of his report: ""The creation of a single border agency responsible for all immediate tasks required to secure the borders should provide a positive public perception of the services being provided and improve confidence in the efforts being made to protect national wellbeing, and in the Government’s ability to exercise proper control. Equally important, a more coherent, comprehensive and robust regime should also have a similar effect in terms of deterring criminal activity"." I am sure that no one in this House would disagree with him. Although we are not entirely reliant on his conclusions, my party strongly believes that, in the piecemeal reform that is before us again today, the Government have missed the opportunity to bring about a totally coherent system to protect our borders. Finally, my other amendments would require consultation with other bodies before additional functions were included among those listed. They recognise that this is a developing field. Those who want to breach our border controls are constantly devising new ways of doing so. This will never be a static situation. Whether or not we continue this debate in the House today, it will continue largely because of this missed opportunity in the Bill. We have today rushed through provisions against the background of a shadow organisation that has already been set up. The detailed consultation on this should continue. The Government are making a mistake in not ensuring that the border police are the force of our borders but at some stage it will come about. I beg to move.