🔍 Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Sixth sitting)

• Clause 19 Definitions: This clause defines key terms used in the powers related to electronic devices, specifically aimed at irregular entrants suspected of facilitation offences. It specifies who qualifies as an “authorised officer,” including immigration officers and police constables.

• Clause 20 Search Powers: Immigration officers and police constables can search irregular entrants if there’s a reasonable belief that they possess electronic devices with information linked to facilitation offences. These searches extend to individuals, properties, and vehicles, with safeguards to ensure appropriate use.

• Clause 26 Additional Definitions: This clause clarifies further terms used in clauses 19 to 23 to provide transparency and understanding for both the public and officers using these powers.

• Concerns and Opposition: Some members expressed concerns over the invasive nature of the new powers, likening them to police state practices. They highlighted potential impacts on human rights, privacy, and the need for more specific guidance on their use.

• Support for Electronic Device Powers: Other members supported the powers to seize and extract data from electronic devices, seeing them as crucial for disrupting smuggling networks and ensuring national security.

• Clause 21 Seizure and Retention: This clause allows for the seizure and retention of electronic devices found during searches, emphasizing the need for clear processes in doing so.

• Clause 22 Sharing Seized Items: If non-immigration offences are discovered on seized devices, such as evidence of terrorism or child exploitation, the clause mandates these items be passed on to relevant agencies like the police.

• Clause 23 Access and Use of Information: Authorized officers can access, copy, and use data from devices to assist in the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of facilitation offences, aimed at tackling organized crime and saving lives during dangerous migrant journeys.

• New Clause 22 Rejected: A proposal to allow law enforcement to track illegal migrants using their mobile phone location data was rejected, as existing laws and safeguards were deemed sufficient and the proposal potentially disproportionate.

• Clauses 24 and 25 Amendments: These clauses amend existing laws to include the seizure of devices that might contain legally privileged or special material and extend powers to other authorized officers through secondary legislation.

• Clauses 27 to 29 Data Sharing: These clauses enable HMRC to share customs information with other government departments and police for use in securing borders and law enforcement, with strict rules on the reuse and further disclosure of such information.

• New Clause 23 Rejected: A suggestion to exempt those entering the UK illegally or foreign criminals from GDPR protections was not adopted, as it was seen as too complicated and potentially disadvantaging vulnerable groups.

• Clauses 30 and 31 Trailer Registration Data: The Transport Secretary can now share trailer registration data to aid in border security and law enforcement, aiming to prevent incidents like the tragic deaths of migrants in lorry trailers.

• Clauses 32 and 33 Safeguards and Definitions: These clauses clarify how data can be shared, ensure compliance with existing laws, and define terms used in the data-sharing provisions.

• Clauses 34 and 35 Biometric Information in Evacuations: These clauses allow the collection of biometric data during evacuations from crisis zones, ensuring identity verification and security, with specific safeguards for children.

• Clause 36 Biometrics at Scottish Ports: This clause enables the taking of biometrics at Scottish ports, aligning Scotland’s practices with those in the rest of the UK for terrorism-related detentions.

The session focused on enhancing border security and tackling illegal immigration through new powers over electronic devices, data sharing between agencies, and biometric data collection, with detailed debate on the necessity and implications of these measures.

The session displays a moderate level of disagreement among participants. The discussions center around the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, specifically clauses and amendments related to electronic devices, data sharing, and biometric information. Here are the key points of disagreement and agreement observed during the session:

1. Disagreement on the Scope and Application of Powers:
   • The SNP Member, Pete Wishart, expresses strong reservations about Clauses 19 to 23, which grant powers to search, seize, and use information from electronic devices. He argues that these powers are invasive and could infringe on individuals’ rights, drawing a comparison to a ‘police state’. He calls for more clarity on how these powers will be applied, especially concerning profiling and the potential targeting of asylum seekers.
   • In contrast, Labour Members, like Jo White and Chris Murray, express support for the same clauses, emphasizing their importance in dismantling smuggling networks and enhancing security measures.
2. Disagreement on New Clauses and Amendments:
   • Matt Vickers (Conservative) proposes new clause 22, which would allow law enforcement access to mobile phone location data of illegal entrants. This suggestion meets opposition from Dame Angela Eagle, who argues that existing legal frameworks already allow for such data access without further complicating the laws.
   • Katie Lam (Conservative) supports new clause 23 to disapply GDPR to data on illegal entrants and foreign national offenders, aiming to ease data-sharing for law enforcement. However, Dame Angela Eagle opposes this, citing concerns about complicating data protections and maintaining standards of data protection.
3. Points of Agreement:
   • There is broad agreement on the need for data sharing between government and enforcement agencies to combat organized crime and enhance border security, as evidenced by the support for Clauses 27 to 33.
   • The necessity of collecting biometric data in crisis situations (Clause 34) and extending these powers to ports in Scotland (Clause 36) is agreed upon with little dissension, indicating a consensus on these aspects of the bill.

Overall, the level of disagreement is moderate because, while certain clauses and amendments did spark debate, the majority of the clauses were supported across party lines with clear reasoning and minimal contention. The disagreements that did occur were centered around significant concerns such as privacy rights, data protection, and the scope of investigative powers, but the debate was conducted with a focus on policy implications rather than personal attacks or extreme opposition. Therefore, a rating of 3 is suitable as it captures this balanced but noticeable level of disagreement within the session.