The Bill, as we know, seeks to introduce the necessary domestic legislation to enable us to ratify the 1954 Hague convention. The Bill makes it an offence to deal in cultural property that has been unlawfully exported from occupied territory if the perpetrator knew, or had reason to respect, that the cultural property concerned had been unlawfully exported. The purpose of Amendment 20 is to try to find out a bit more from the Government about the impact that they are assuming that the Bill will have on Border Force staff, as one assumes that they will have a role to play in detecting and apprehending those who try to deal illegally in the cultural property covered by the Bill.
The impact assessment advises us that the National Crime Agency and Border Force will not face any significant costs as a result of the Bill and that any costs will be absorbed into what is described as daily business. In relation to the Border Force, whose budget was cut by more than £300 million by the previous Government in the years up to 2015 and which was widely reported by certain sections of the national press during the referendum campaign as not being capable of preventing people from Calais landing on our coast away from the major ports, it seems odd that the Government are contemplating any additional costs without undertaking to provide the required resources to match those costs. To what extent, then, does the Bill simply extend a form of activity in which Border Force staff are already engaged, and to what extent is this a new area of responsibility for Border Force staff? If it is a type of activity that Border Force staff are already engaged in, to what extent will the Bill lead to an additional workload, and will any additional staff be required whose costs will have to be absorbed into daily business? If this is a completely new area of responsibility for Border Force staff, what will be the nature of the additional workload? If any additional staff are required, what additional training and skills will be needed and what will be the cost and time span of that training, the costs of which will have to be absorbed into daily business? In saying that the Border Force will not face any significant costs, could the Government tell us the financial threshold that they used in this instance to decide that any costs that are to be absorbed into daily business should not be deemed to have reached the level of significant costs?
6.15 pm
I notice that the impact assessment says that none of the measures proposed incurs any one-off or recurring costs to business, although later the impact assessment refers to one-off familiarisation costs associated with the legislation for organisations that are not considered by the Government to be businesses in any shape or form. Could the Government confirm that it means that there will no additional costs for checking or for administrative requirements on transport companies moving goods as a result of the Bill in relation to the carriage of cultural property covered by it?
A further amendment in this group is intended to find out what is meant to be the definition of “constable” in Clause 23, which provides for a warrant to be issued by a justice, authorising,
“a constable … to enter and search the premises … and … to seize any property found there which the constable has grounds for believing is liable to forfeiture”.
Is “constable” simply meant to be a definition of a police officer with the statutory powers applicable to that position? If that is the case, would the Government expect a constable exercising a power conferred by a warrant under Clause 23, including seizure, to be an officer of at least a certain rank or an officer with any particular training in relation to the unlawful export of cultural property?
Another amendment in this group is Amendment 27. Clause 24 deals with the retention of property in the custody of a constable. There appears to be no similar clause for the retention of property in the custody of the Border Force. Amendment 27 seeks to invite the Government to say why this is the case. Perhaps the Government could say if it is intended that there could be retention of property in the custody of the Border Force or whether the reason for the admission is that the power will not actually be available to the Border Force. If it is the former, are the Government saying that that power is already provided for in other legislation—and, if so, what is the statute in question? If the power is not to be available to the Border Force, what is the thinking behind that decision?
Finally, Amendment 26 in this group seeks to bring in line the requirements when property is under the custody of the police under Clause 24 to ensure that the requirements match those when the property is seized as determined in Clause 22. I beg to move.