🗳️ Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Third sitting)

Public Bill Committees

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

In a heated session on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Committee debated the role and powers of the proposed Border Security Commander. Opposition members criticized the commander’s role as lacking authority, proposing amendments to enhance their independence and ability to direct other agencies. Despite these efforts, all amendments were rejected, maintaining the government’s stance on the commander’s limited, co-operative role within the Home Office. The session highlighted ongoing tensions between ensuring effective border security and respecting international human rights obligations.

Summary

  • The session focused on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, discussing the role and functions of the Border Security Commander.
  • Amendment 10 was debated, which proposed removing the requirement for the Border Security Commander to be a civil servant. The Government, represented by Minister Angela Eagle, argued that the role should be within the civil service for better coordination and integration across government activities.
  • Clauses 1 and 2 were considered to stand part of the Bill, defining the appointment and terms of the Border Security Commander as a civil servant role.
  • The Committee also discussed amendment 1, which aimed to ensure the Border Security Commander operates within the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. This was debated but not accepted, as these obligations are already implicit in public authority roles.
  • Amendment 12 sought to ensure the Commander’s strategic priority document supports the Home Office’s UK Border Strategy. This was voted on and rejected.
  • Amendment 13 aimed to empower the Home Secretary to direct other agencies to support the Border Security Commander. This amendment was debated and ultimately rejected.
  • Amendment 11 proposed removing the need for the Border Security Commander to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent for issuing the strategic priority document. It was debated and rejected.
  • New Clause 7 suggested mandatory quarterly meetings between the Border Security Commander and Europol’s director. This was discussed but not supported.
  • New Clause 21 intended to set specific objectives for the Border Security Commander in relation to sea crossings and removals. It was debated and not accepted.
  • Clause 3 outlined the functions of the Border Security Commander, including maximizing the effectiveness and coordination of partner authorities’ activities in relation to border security threats.
  • Clause 4 established the duty of the Border Security Commander to prepare annual reports on their functions and the performance of the border security system. Amendments to include specific details in the report were rejected.
  • Clause 5 was discussed to ensure partner authorities’ cooperation with the Border Security Commander, limited by what is ‘appropriate and reasonably practicable’.
  • The session involved debates and votes on various amendments, but none were passed, reflecting the Government’s stance on maintaining control and flexibility in the role and operations of the Border Security Commander.

Divisiveness

The parliamentary session displayed a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centered around the role, powers, and responsibilities of the Border Security Commander. Here’s a detailed analysis of the disagreements observed in the session:

  1. Role and Independence of the Border Security Commander: There was a notable disagreement on whether the Border Security Commander should be a civil servant and the extent of their independence. Matt Vickers suggested an amendment to allow the appointment of the Commander to be open beyond civil servants, arguing that removing this requirement could bring in more talent and prevent political interference. In contrast, Dame Angela Eagle defended the civil service role, stating that the recruitment could still be external but emphasized the importance of co-ordination within the government structure. Katie Lam argued for flexibility in the future, suggesting the Home Secretary should have the option to appoint an independent Commander. This back-and-forth highlighted a significant disagreement on the structure and potential effectiveness of the role.

    Example: Matt Vickers stated, “Amendment 10 would remove the requirement for the Border Security Commander to be a civil servant.” Dame Angela Eagle responded, “The role of the commander is a civil service role and the Border Security Command is a directorate within the Home Office.”

  2. Command vs. Coordination: There was a debate on whether the Border Security Commander should have command authority or merely a coordinating role. Matt Vickers expressed concern that the Commander lacked real command over other agencies, referring to them as a mere coordinator rather than a commander. The government stance, articulated by Dame Angela Eagle, emphasized the importance of coordination and cooperation rather than command, with the Commander working collaboratively with other agencies.

    Example: Matt Vickers highlighted, “That sounds suspiciously like a co-ordinator, rather than a commander.” Dame Angela Eagle countered, “The most effective commanding is exactly that: it is done with co-operation; it is not done with dictatorial powers or attempts to undermine the independence of other organizations.”

  3. Strategic Priority Document and Home Secretary’s Role: There was disagreement over the necessity of the Commander’s strategic priority document supporting the Home Office’s UK Border Strategy and whether the Home Secretary should approve the document before issuance. Matt Vickers proposed amendments for the document to support the UK Border Strategy and remove the requirement for Home Secretary approval. However, Dame Angela Eagle argued that the existing framework allowed for adequate cooperation and ministerial oversight, maintaining that ministerial consent was essential.

    Example: Matt Vickers stated, “Amendment 12 to ensure that the strategic priority document supports the Home Office’s UK border strategy.” Dame Angela Eagle explained, “Border security is a fundamental part of the strategic approach to the wider border, and the strategic priorities for border security will help to drive the wider UK approach.”

  4. Human Rights and International Obligations: Pete Wishart pushed for amendments to ensure the Commander’s compliance with the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. While the Minister confirmed implicit adherence to these obligations, there was a disagreement on whether these obligations should be explicitly stated in the legislation. This was particularly underscored by Wishart’s concerns over the FDA v. the Cabinet Office case and its implications on civil servants’ obligations.

    Example: Pete Wishart argued, “Let us have one—just one—that says that he must be prepared and obliged always to act in line with all of our obligations on international responsibility.” Dame Angela Eagle responded, “The Border Security Commander will be a public authority within the meaning of section 6 of the Human Rights Act, and must act compatibly with the Act.”

  5. Operational Effectiveness and Reporting: Matt Vickers proposed amendments for the annual report to include specific data points such as numbers of charges, convictions, and deportations, suggesting that the report lacked transparency and objectivity. The government resisted these amendments, with Dame Angela Eagle arguing that such detailed requirements would impair the flexibility of the Commander’s reporting and noting that these statistics are already published by the Home Office.

    Example: Matt Vickers said, “We would like the Border Security Commander to report on the number of persons who have, since the later of the passing of the Bill or the last annual report, been charged or convicted of offences…” Dame Angela Eagle opposed, “The amendment proposes that the annual report must state how the commander has carried out the functions of their office in the financial year, and set out the commander’s views on the performance of the border security system, with particular reference to the strategic priorities that have been set.”

The disagreement was significant but not contentious to the point of being disruptive or deeply fractious. Both sides engaged in substantive debate and addressed each other’s points, which indicates a level of respect and willingness to consider different viewpoints. The disagreements were focused on improving the legislation rather than personal attacks or obstructiveness, suggesting a medium level of disagreement. Therefore, a rating of 3 seems appropriate, reflecting the presence of substantive disagreements but not reaching the level of high conflict or impasse.