RELEASE OF APPELLANTS PENDING APPEAL (Hansard, 19 March 1969)

§ Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)
I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 21, line 7, after 'officer' insert 'with a warrant'.
In Committee the Under-Secretary was kind enough to accept a rather similar Amendment in regard to the powers of immigration officers. He undertook to consider this Amendment, because he was in two minds about it. I had hoped that he would have tabled an Amendment himself at this stage. As he has not, I have tried another method of getting my own way or of safeguarding the position. In Committee the Under-Secretary stated that immigration officers already had powers of arrest comparable with police officers in matters connected with immigration control. I gather that this comes under the Aliens Order, under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I do not think that in either case, however, they have power to arrest for breaking bail, which is the important point of the Amendment.
I should like to know from the Minister whether these officers have any other powers of arrest except, as the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, at the point of entry at the ports. The hon. Gentleman has kindly sent me a 697 letter, but it is rather contradictory to what he said in Committee, because the letter states that one point which perhaps did not emerge clearly during our discussion in Standing Committee is that at most ports the adjudicator will not sit to hear appeals in the precincts of the port itself, but in premises at some distance from the port boundary. At London Airport, for example, the buildings at Harmondsworth that we propose to use are outside the airport perimeter; and at seaports, the adjudicator is likely to make use of buildings in the town that are used by courts or other tribunals. In Standing Committee, in reply to one of his hon. Friends, the Minister said: This is to prevent him absconding. Appeals will be heard at the airport. We do not envisage that it will be necessary to have police there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 18th February, 1969; c. 161.] Apparently, according to the Minister's letter, the appeals are not to be heard at the airport, unless I have misunderstood him. This makes quite a difference to my proposition.
I assume that the ordinary civil police will be at the courts, because they normally attend them. The immigration officers will have to do the travelling from the point of entry and from the airport to the courts. This makes a great difference in the whole approach to my suggestion.
An immigration officer is a member of the executive grade of the Civil Service and is not subject to the Police Code. Therefore, no complaint can be made against him if he makes an unlawful arrest. This is what particularly worries me. He may make a mistake but, I gather, no complaint can be made.
I regret to say that in some cases, the situation between the immigration officers is not, perhaps, as happy as it was when the 39 immigration officers at London Airport issued their statement supporting the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South west (Mr. Powell)—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It will help the Official Reporters if the hon. Lady speaks up a little.

§ Dame Joan Vickers
At this late hour, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to hurry. I am sorry if you do not think that I was speaking loudly enough. Would you like me to repeat what I was saying?

§ Mr. Speaker
I was not calling the hon. Lady to order. I was only saying that the Official Reporters would be pleased if the hon. Lady spoke up a little.

§ Dame Joan Vickers
The Council of Churches also wrote to the Minister expressing its fears concerning this matter. I do not know whether it has yet received a reply. As the hon. Member was of two minds about this point, if he cannot accept my Amendment—I recognise that he might not be able to; I am not altogether pleased with it, but it was the best way that I could express my feelings about the matter in view of the earlier refusal—perhaps he will consider what action might be taken to safeguard against this undesirable situation.
My particular worry is that information might be laid to the immigration officer by somebody who has stood surety for an immigrant who might have quarrelled with him, who might not like the immigrant or might be actuated by malice. I do not see how an immigration officer will be able to make a distinction in the case of letters which he receives, as stated in the Bill.
If an immigration officer receives a letter, must he make the arrest or can he ask another immigration officer or a constable to make the arrest on his behalf? The whole situation is so unclear and so unsatisfactory that if the Minister cannot tonight accept my Amendment, I hope that he will give an assurance to look at the matter, and perhaps an Amendment can be put down in another place.

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees
In answering this debate, I should not like to go back to the days a year ago when 39 immigration officers supported the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Immigration officers have to do a most difficult job. I should be the last to condone what was done, but there is often a strong feeling at the ports that they do no have a great deal of support from the community as a whole in doing what, in many respects, is not the world's most pleasant job. As I said in Standing Committee, any odium there may be is far better put on the politicians who arrange the rules rather than on the people who carry them out.

§ Dame Joan Vickers
I made my feeling on that clear in Committee, and I did not want to reiterate it tonight.

§ Mr. Rees
Yes. Nevertheless, I felt that some justification of the background to it, without justifying what was done, was called for.
I should make clear at the outset that immigration officers already have concurrent powers to arrest, without the police, in matters connected with immigration control. So far as I am aware, and so far as the Home Office is aware, there has never been any complaint arising from their exercise. This must be the starting point for me. I could find no example of a situation where there had been complaint. But the power arises from the nature of the job which immigration officers have to do under the 1962 Act and the Aliens Order, and it is vital that it should be there.
In Committee, I accepted an Amendment which removed from the Bill words which would have given immigration officers as well as the police powers of entry into premises in different parts of the country to effect an arrest. I consider that that was right, because the fewer people that have powers of arrest the better. I was glad to accept that Amendment.
The Amendment which the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has now put to us arises out of the possibility of bail under the Bill. There may be problems arising from the granting of bail. This is a possibility which I have to take into account because— goodness knows—there are enough problems already arising out of immigration control. Paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 3 permits an appellant who has been released on bail to be arrested without a warrant either by an immigration officer or by a police officer in circumstances in which a person released on bail in criminal proceedings may be arrested under Section 23(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, that is, if the arresting officer has reason to apprehend a breach of recognisance, or if a surety expects that a breach will occur.
The Amendment—it is defective in drafting but I make no point of that, since such things can be put right—is intended to provide that an immigration officer may exercise this power of arrest only with a warrant. As the hon. Lady 700 said, I have already explained to her that the sort of idea which we discussed in Standing Committee was not possible, and she has come back, as she delightfully put it, to try to get her own way, which is always the prerogative of her sex.
It seemed to be agreed by all hon. Members who spoke on the subject in Committee—and it is accepted by the Government—that it should be left to the police to effect the arrest of a bail-breaker whenever police officers are available. The reason why I do not propose to confine the power of arrest entirely to the police is very much related to what might happen if an appellant who had been on bail turned up at the place where his appeal was to be heard but decided to abscond before the appeal came on for hearing. I recall the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) pointing out in Committee that a similar problem could arise if an appellant were allowed to be on bail during the lunch interval and then decided to abscond.
It would be inappropriate to the nature of the proceedings of an adjudicator's hearing, as well as wasteful of police manpower, to have police officers in attendance at the hearing of immigration appeals. There being no police officer present, the only person with power to prevent an appellant from absconding in the circumstances I have described would be one of the officers attending appeals on behalf of the immigration service.
1.15 a.m.
Perhaps I should make clear one point on which I was thinking aloud in Standing Committee, largely because I wanted to be helpful. The premises in which the appeals will be heard will not always be in the precincts of the port itself. At London Airport the buildings at Harmondsworth that are to be used for the hearing of appeals are outside the airport perimeter. At seaports an adjudicator is likely to make use of buildings in the towns which are used by courts and other tribunals. This means that the port authorities' police will not, as was suggested in Standing Committee, be at hand to arrest an absconding appellant at an immigration officer's request. It also means that I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. 701 Member for North Fylde that the immigration officers' power of arrest should be limited to the port area.
The Amendment proposes that an immigration officer should still have the power of arrest but only where a warrant has been granted. However, as I have explained, in the kind of situation in which I envisage that an immigration officer might have to exercise the power himself because no police officer was available, there would certainly not be time to apply to a magistrate for a warrant. The Amendment would deny immigration officers any effective power to take action when an appellant absconded.
As I explained at the beginning, immigration officers have powers of arrest already. I am absolutely sure on investigating this question, as I promised in Committee upstairs that I would, that it is vital they should have. I wrote to the hon. Lady and explained this point. I am equally sure that to have to get a warrant in the case of a person absconding from bail would take time which, in the circumstances, I am equally sure could not be afforded. For those reasons I resist the Amendment.