Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2005.

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill - Standing Committee E

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I welcome members of the Committee to this sitting. I shall be in the Chair again this afternoon. I hope that people had a restful weekend, particularly the Minister, given his burden of duties. When the Committee adjourned last Thursday, it had made good progress and had completed up to and including clause 22.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. Thank you for your kind comments. Welcome to the Chair today. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and myself, I offer the Minister our warmest thanks for the kindness and courtesy that he showed yesterday. He made available his officials to take us through some of the new clauses, of which they gave us a very helpful explanation. They were extremely helpful and kind.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

That was not strictly a point of order. However, I was delighted to take it and allow it, because it shows Parliament working at its best, where there is co-operation on a technical and sensitive Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point to the Government.

Clause 23 - Documents produced or found

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I beg to move amendment No. 113, in clause 23, page 10, line 33, leave out lines 33 to 41 and insert—

‘(b)if on examination of any document so produced or found the immigration officer is of the opinion that it may be needed in connection with proceedings on or for an offence.’.

I welcome you back to the Chair, Sir Nicholas. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my first speech in a Standing Committee. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I make any procedural errors. The reputation of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality goes before him. I am sure that his friendliness and helpfulness to Opposition Members will mean that I shall not get into too much trouble.

In the past week, I have sat patiently and heard the word “brevity” being used many times in many long speeches. I shall try, as I am used to, to keep matters brief and to the point.

Under the Immigration Act 1971, an immigration officer is already permitted to detain for seven days any document that has been found as a result of an immigration search. The Bill extends that power by allowing passports or other documents to be detained for any purpose. We are not happy with that possibility. We must limit the powers to detain passports. Identity documents are necessary in everyday life—for example, to provide evidence of housing or to deal with local councils. For the Government to detain passports for any purpose is too overbearing.

Moreover, the measure may discourage people who wish to leave the country from doing so. I shall give one example: a person from Afghanistan, having been refused asylum, wished to return home, because he could not bear being separated from the rest of his family. He had been refused asylum and was without support, so he went to the International Organisation for Migration for assistance with voluntary return to Afghanistan. His documents had been detained, and he was not allowed to leave the country. The Home Office did not give him approval to go, and he received no further information. That was in January 2005.

In September 2005, the person in question sought advice and found that the Home Office had carried out routine checks with the police, and that there was an unspecified problem with his documents. He stated that to the best of his knowledge he had never been in any trouble with the police, and he had never had any reason to believe that there would be any problem with him returning, but he was still not allowed to do so. The IOM said that it would speak to the Home Office and try to resolve the situation, and it found that the Home Office had removed its bar on him travelling, but had not told him so. He is therefore hoping to return to Afghanistan by the end of October. However, the fact that his documents had been detained stopped him from returning home to his country of origin. Clearly, such incidents do not help people who want to return home voluntarily.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I welcome hon. Members back to the Committee. It is a pleasure for me, as a fellow MP for the Greater Manchester area, to welcome the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) to the Committee and also his first contribution to the Committee. I speak on behalf of some of my other colleagues in Greater Manchester in wishing him well but hoping that he will stick to the facts, which was not perhaps always the case during the recent general election campaign—[Hon. Members: “Oh.”]—However, we will leave that matter to one side for now.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. I say to the Minister that what happened up to 5 May is of no relevance to this Standing Committee. However, I enjoyed his remark.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

It was a completely gratuitous remark, Sir Nicholas, and I shall move on.

Clause 23 relates to documents produced or found at immigration control—documents produced to an immigration officer. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment relates to the existing and long-standing power of an immigration officer to retain a passport or other relevant document on examination of an arriving or departing passenger. An immigration officer can retain more than just a travel document.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of clause 23 is to rationalise and simplify the existing provisions so that the same procedures apply to the examination and detention of all types of documents. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I explain that at present those powers are laid out under the provisions of paragraph 4 of schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, but a distinction is made between travel documents and “other relevant documents” that may be of use to an immigration officer in their inquiries. Therefore, at present there are two different sets of procedures governing the detention of documents. We believe that it would be easier and more convenient for immigration staff if they could operate under a single code, so the clause rationalises and simplifies those procedures. The clause does give immigration staff powers to detain documents, but those powers already exist—immigration staff could at present detain a document for more than seven days, or until removal.

The hon. Gentleman quoted the example of a case involving someone who was unable to leave the country, but proposed new sub-paragraph (b) states clearly that the document can be detained

“until the person ... is about to depart or be removed following refusal”.

The power exists for documents to be released should the person wish to leave the country.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I understand how proposed new sub-paragraph (b) works, but will the Minister explain how proposed new sub-paragraph (c) works in relation to it, because it appears to give the power for documents to be retained longer than is specified in sub-paragraph (b)? If someone has a suspensive appeal outside the country, would sub-paragraph (c) allow those documents to be retained after the person had left the country, despite what is stated in sub-paragraph (b)?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

If someone was exercising their right to appeal from outside the country, travel documents would have to be released to them so that they could re-enter the country from which they wanted to make the appeal. A person could not regain entry to the country from which they arrived in the UK if they were not adequately documented on their arrival back in their country.

Sub-paragraph (c) considers the situation in which immigration service staff or the immigration and nationality directorate may wish to hold documents until an appeal is heard on a particular case. That is the scenario that sub-paragraph (c) envisages. In considering fully a case before the asylum and immigration tribunal, the IND would want to hold documents pending full consideration and conclusion of that case.

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, which is relevant especially to appeals heard within this country.

The proposed amendment would remove an immigration officer’s existing power to retain a document until a decision is taken on whether to give the person leave to enter or until the time they are about to depart or to be removed from the UK. The current law makes the equivalent provision for passports and other identity documents. Clause 23 simply extends the existing law to other relevant documents to simplify the procedure and make the job easier for front-line staff at immigration control.

The proposed amendment would also remove an immigration officer’s existing power to retain a document while an immigration appeal is pending, as I explained to my hon. Friend. That would prevent the immigration officer from preserving vital relevant evidence in an immigration appeal that is essential fairly to determine the immigration status of the person concerned.

I accept the points made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) about the usefulness of documents for people going about their everyday life. Having pushed his patience once, I may do so again by saying that it sounds as though he may be getting to the point where he could support identity cards and their usefulness as an everyday document in dealing with local councils, for example. I commend to him our identity card as a useful document in doing so. He knows that people who have made an asylum claim are issued with documentation to help them with their stay in the country, especially the application registration card. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but people are helped to negotiate their everyday dealings through other such documents.

With those assurances, I hope hon. Members will accept that the clause does nothing more than simplify the existing law.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I understand the point being made in relation to the simplification and rationalisation of the procedure, but the Minister has not addressed the issue of passports being retained for any purpose. That is my major concern. I understand the sentiment behind it, but the whole process could be abused and used for other purposes. I would appreciate it if the Minister would devote a minute of his time to explaining how it will not be abused.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The purpose of the clause is to give immigration staff, who do an important job in upholding the security of the border, the powers that they need to carry out their functions properly and effectively. The power is in existing legislation. As I explained, the passport can be held up until removal. I want to reassure the hon. Gentlemanthat we would expect that power to be used proportionately and legitimately. The aim would not be unfairly to disadvantage individuals in any way. It would simply be used to help the member of staff carry out his official functions.

The purposes here could also include possible investigation into forgery or document tampering. There can be a wider application than simply examination, which is the point referred to in proposed new sub-paragraph (a). It might sometimes be necessary to make further inquiries about the integrity of the document or the post that issued the visa included in the document. The role that the immigration officer can play can go wider than a simple examination by hand of the document, which is why the clause is drafted as it is. It was a fair point. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to provide that extra clarification. The clause is non-contentious and simplifies the existing the law. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

With that reassurance from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

This is an important clause and I was interested to hear the amendment proposed to it. The clause deals with powers of immigration officers, of which there are many under existing law, but it prepares us for the time when immigration officers will have devices to scan faces, irises or fingerprints to compare that information with people’s biometric passports or visas. It gives them the power to require people being examined on arrival or departure to undergo scanning in order to provide biometric information.

Broadly speaking, that is to be welcomed, although I should like the Minister to confirm that the power would be applied to British citizens and citizens of other European economic area countries, as well as to other non-EEA nationals. To whom is the power likely to apply? Of course, there are existing powers of examination allowing people to be required by a notice in writing to submit to further examination but not if this would prevent transit passengers or crew from joining their intended ship or aircraft. The clause widens the position.

The second provision in the clause enables an immigration officer to detain a passport for up to seven days to examine it and for longer in other circumstances defined as “any purposes”, which is rather a wide phrase. Passports are, and remain, the property of the issuing Government. Traditionally, Government agencies have appropriately been given limited powers to retain them. Under the 1971 Act an immigration officer is permitted to retain any document as the result of an immigration search for seven days or, if the document is needed for criminal proceedings, until they are satisfied that it will not be so needed. The Bill extends the power by allowing passports or other documents to be retained for “any purpose”—I repeat, a wide phrase—until the grant of leave or the departure of the holder, or until it is decided that the person does not require leave to enter.

One must ask what, if any, prejudice people whose identity documents are held in that way may suffer. There are those who say—I hope that the Minister can help me on this, as they may be right—that those people will need their proper identity documents in their normal daily lives to prove their identity to landlords, doctors, hospitals, childcare professionals and so on. That problem could be solved if the Minister were to undertake that anyone whose document was taken under those circumstances would have a full photocopy of that document given to them, certified by an official as a true copy, to enable them to establish their identity. That would be a simple process. I shudder when I see a proposal permitting a passport to be retained by the Home Office. We all have experience of passports being lost.

Gwyn Prosser (Dover) (Lab) indicated assent.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I see the hon. Gentleman nodding furiously. Perhaps I do him an unkindness. He is extremely well versed in such matters, and perhaps he intended to shake his head.

The people who work in the immigration service are inevitably hard-working and diligent, and do their best. I have no criticism of them or their integrity, but I have a criticism of the system in which passports get lost and are not found for months.

I want to mention a particular case. I should like the Minister to comment, not necessarily on this particular case, but on the general principle of people being able to lay their hands on their passport quickly. The case involves J, a long-term overstayer, who applied to stay in the UK with her husband, who was settled here. Nothing happened; it was taking for ever to get a response, and in June 2003, J decided to return to Gambia with her British-born, British-citizen children, and apply for entry clearance from there. The Home Office promised to return the passport. It did not, so further inquiries were made, and it said that it would return her passport at the airport. She booked a flight, got to the airport, and there was no passport. It took months before she was given her old passport, by which time it had expired, and was able to submit it to her high commissioner and obtain a new one. She finally travelled from the UK in January 2004. She obtained her entry clearance, although that was not a speedy process either, and in November 2004 was able to return to the UK with her daughters and with leave as a spouse to remain with her husband.

That is a not untypical case, and I venture to suggest that there are hon. Members in this Committee who have, from time to time, telephoned the immigration hotline—a number known only to Members of Parliament, for obvious reasons—and asked the person at the other end, “Where is the passport of my constituent x? They are sick of waiting for it and want to travel.” It can take ages—days, sometimes weeks—for a passport to be located. Sometimes I get an answer to the effect that it is somewhere in the system, and they cannot lay their hands on it. If it takes a Member of Parliament time to get hold of a document, or to get an answer, members of the public are disadvantaged. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some assurance in the stand part debate that systems exist within the Home Office to ensure that there will be availability and accessibility to documents that have been retained indefinitely for any purpose, particularly for those seeking to travel. In particular, people will obviously need to prove their identity in other walks of life, so why not give them a full, certified photocopy of it?

Finally, I have five questions for the stand part debate. In what circumstances is a passport required with an appeal? When would a person described in proposed new sub-paragraph (c), whose passport is retained beyond the time when he or she is about to depart or to be removed, get their passport back? What will happen in the case of the new out-of-country appeals proposed under clause 1 and in existing cases in which the appeal is out of country? The Minister alluded to that briefly, but can he explain it more fully? Could a passport be retained in any circumstances after a person has returned to their country? What about human rights cases heard out of country because they are certified as clearly unfounded? Would it be possible to retain the passports of those people beyond the time when they leave the UK?

If a passport is returned to a person after their plane has landed in another country or during the journey, who will have the passport in the meantime? Will it always be in the possession of an immigration officer or a consular official? What steps will be taken to ensure that the person gets their passport back and that their safety is not compromised if the handover of the passport is witnessed by local immigration officials, who might take that as suggesting that the person is in trouble with the UK authorities? Those were the queries and points that I wanted to raise in the clause stand part debate.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am sure that the Minister has had time to give thought to all those questions. I call Mr. Andy Burnham.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, because they give me an opportunity to expand on the clause. He is right to say that it contains important provisions. We covered much of proposed new sub-paragraph (4) in earlier exchanges, although I will return to the points on which he asked for clarification. I shall begin, however, by speaking to proposed new sub-paragraph (5), which he is right to say relates to biometric identification and verification. That will significantly enhance the integrity of our border controls. Under later clauses, we shall discuss in more detail our e-borders proposals, but it is right to explain more at this point about how biometric identification systems can enhance border control.

Clause 23 introduces a new power enabling immigration officers to use biometric identifiers to verify the validity of documents—for example, for those with biometric passports or those who have provided biometric data when applying for entry clearance or a visa for the UK. Immigration officers will be able to compare a document against the data collected when the travel document or entry clearance was issued to ensure the document’s authenticity and to verify its holder’s identity.

Initially, the power will be used for people who applied for biometric visas. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have begun to roll out—to use the favourite word of my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality—the biometric visa programme. The first pilot began in Sri Lanka, I believe, but the system is now in use at various locations around the world and is producing interesting and encouraging results. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is the direction of travel not only of this Government but of others: biometric visas are slowly but surely being introduced at posts around the world. Yes, the clause will initially relate to the verification of biometric visas, but to answer his main question, it will, in due course, apply to all persons, including UK citizens, with biometrically enabled travel documents, as well as to those who have a biometric visa or about whom biometric information has been recorded.

From next year, the first biometric passports will be issued to UK citizens. The passports will hold a chip that includes facial recognition technology. Over the next two to three years, the passports will be enhanced to become full biometric passports. The hon. Gentleman knows that the requirement for a biometric passport has been laid down by the United States in respect of countries in the visa waiver scheme. However, there is general agreement among the majority of leading countries around the world that we need to take steps towards full biometric passports.

The clause envisages the time when we will all hold biometric travel documents and it gives the power to the immigration officer to verify the person before them at the immigration desk. It gives them the ability to ensure that the reading for the person standing there who places their finger on the machine or looks into the system corresponds with the information held on the chip.

To be clear, the provision significantly enhances the security of travel documents. The strength of the biometric identification system is that people will be unable to hold multiple travel documents. They will be able to register their biometrics only once and therefore the scope to travel on false documents will be severely limited. That is why the clause is important. It will apply generally to holders of all biometric passports in time, and I am grateful to have had the chance to clarify that point.

The hon. Gentleman made a similar point about documents that are needed in everyday life—I believe that was the phrase he used—particularly in relation to the retention of passports by the Home Office. I readily acknowledge, as I did before I joined the Home Office as a junior Minister, that we have all come across cases in which passports or travel documents have gone missing. That is not something that we would consider likely or desirable because it can cause considerable stress to people who need their travel documents. I accept that, but that inconvenience has to be balanced by the need at times for immigration staff to have direct access to those documents in the course of carrying out their duties and by their overwhelming duty to uphold the integrity of the system. So although I accept that there are unfortunate examples of travel documents going missing, they have to be balanced against a more general duty on members of the immigration service to go about their work.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I imagine that the retention of a document will happen infrequently. In such cases, will the Minister undertake that if it is retained the person will be provided with a certified photocopy to enable him or her to help to establish their identity in other places? Surely that is an easy task.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the power should not be exercised lightly and that it should be used proportionately at all times. As I said to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington it does not extend immigration officers’ powers to retain documents on occasions where they do not currently do so. We would expect them still to carry out their duties reasonably and proportionately.

Although I listened with interest to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Woking about certified photocopies, that could cause an extra administrative burden on the immigration service. So long as people exercise their functions reasonably and take care and so long as systems are put in place to ensure that documents are taken care of when they are in the possession of the immigration and nationality directorate, we can give him the assurances that he wants.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

A valid point has been made in relation to certified copies of documents. It seems straightforward to make a certified copy of a document that is retained so that someone can use it for the purposes of identity without it being useable as a travel document.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I understand the point, but how useful would that document be, given that it is a photocopy? Furthermore, it would not be especially difficult to forge. What practical use would it be for people’s everyday business?

One must look at another scenario. It may not always be practical to issue the person with a copy of the document. Although I do not disagree with the general thrust of the argument, no one wants to burden people unfairly in going about their daily business. That is not our intention. It is not right to legislate for the two or three occasions on which a passport may go missing. We are ensuring that we give people who are doing an important job on behalf of us all the ability to go about their business in a simple way.

I recognise, however, that we should put systems in place which ensure that, where documents are retained, they are safeguarded and proper account of them is kept. There have been instances in which that has not happened. I accept the point, but I am afraid that I do not concede to go so far as to require all documents to be photocopied.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) asked in what circumstances a passport may be needed in an immigration appeal. The passport or travel document is often relevant to an immigration appeal—for example, in cases in which the nationality of the individual who is appealing is disputed or in which passport stamps are relevant evidence to the claim that is being made. The document is also potential proof of that individual’s identity.

More broadly speaking, immigration service staff retain passports to ensure that, where an appellant loses his or her appeal, he or she can be removed. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the National Audit Office report on removals. He will know that the need to ensure that people are properly documented can be a frustrating factor in operating an effective removals system. I hope he accepts that the need for proper documentation is an important element of our system.

It is important to stress that the ARC card that is issued to all asylum seekers is meant to fulfil the functions that have been mentioned—that is, the ability to go about one’s daily business and the ability to prove one’s identity. The ARC card is a biometric identity card. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen one, but they are a proof of identity that is not currently available to other citizens.

The hon. Gentleman asked about out-of-country appeals. Depending on the outcome of an appeal, the documents would be held until grant of appeal or removal/departure. That is the case in law at present. The Bill does not substantially change the present system; it simply rationalises the process that is in place. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), I cannot believe that there could be many—if any—circumstances in which travel documents would be retained when a removal had been effected or in which a voluntary return had been made.

It would always be right to enable the individual to receive his or her documents. The hon. Member for Woking asked when people would be given back their documents. That would happen at the point of removal, when the individual has boarded the aircraft to leave the UK. That would be the right time to release the documents. These are points of operation for the immigration service and not for primary legislation. The overall principle is that we should return people’s travel documents to them. As he rightly said, it is not a light thing to take someone’s documents away from them. We should return them when they are no longer of any reasonable use to the immigration service.

The clause is important, particularly in respect of the foundations it lays for biometric passports and visas, which will enhance the documents and give their owners more confidence that their travel documents cannot be abused or used fraudulently by those who take those documents from them. It is an assurance for the Government and for the individual travelling member of the public. It will help us to tackle document fraud and identity theft, combat illegal immigration and organised crime, and be a deterrent to those who try to enter the country illegally.

Clause 24 - Attendance for fingerprinting

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

On the face of it, the clause looks pretty straightforward, but I hope that the stand part debate will give me an opportunity to probe the Minister because its effect is to move the goalposts for a certain category of person. At present, under section 142 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, people who are required to be fingerprinted are allowed to have notice of at least seven days in which to attend and, further, that period cannot begin until at least seven days have passed since the date of the notice. However, the amendment will apply to a certain category—namely asylum seekers and their dependants—and reduce that timing to three days. I want to probe the Government’s intention in seeking to amend the clause on those lines and to raise a couple of the difficulties that might arise from it, chiefly to discover the thinking behind the proposed changes.

The people for whom it is proposed that three days rather than seven will apply are those who have sought recognition as a refugee or asserted that their removal would breach their rights under article 3 of the European convention on human rights, and it includes their dependants. Why is the change proposed and why only in respect of that category of person? What evidence is there that it will make such a difference? Will it truly give the Government the advantage that has merited adding a clause? The logical question stemming from that is: why three days? Why not 24 hours or four days? Is there some magic about the time scale, because three days will cause problems?

What will happen if a person can prove that the notice did not reach him or her until after the date on which that person was required to attend? Sadly, we are all familiar with our postal system, which has deteriorated under the Labour Government. In the old days I could guarantee that the first post would arrive first thing in the morning and the second post in the afternoon, but now I cannot guarantee that it will arrive at any time during the day. If the notice was delayed in the post, for example, what would the situation be? Three days is a very short time.

These are not people that we have tagged or tied down in chains. What would happen if they were temporarily absent from their accommodation for a couple of nights, and therefore did not comply with this new and arduous time limit?

Moreover, if these people are required to travel, which might be the case, what if they do not have the wherewithal to travel to that destination? As I understand it, the consequences of failure to comply with the provisions are that, under section 142(3) of the 1999 Act, they can be arrested without a warrant. I hope that the Minister will respond to those pertinent questions.

The fundamental question is why there is a difference. Why pick out this category? I hope that the Minister, in his response, will give a rational and suitable explanation.

I shall now move away from the three days’ timing and the notice delivery and what may cause a person to fail to comply, to the requirement that a person attend at a specified time of day or a specified hour. The proposal to shorten notice periods and give fixed times will run the risk of more missed appointments and perhaps more wasted time. We are all familiar with our GPs complaining when people do not turn up. If people are forced into a straitjacket, it will increase the risk that they will not be able to comply with the conditions that have been placed on them.

While I am on the subject of fingerprinting and this clause, will the Minister examine the wording that has been used in the drafting of the legislation? In proposed new subsection (2) the wording is

“must require him to attend”

and in (2A) it is

“may require him to attend.”

Could attendance not be by arrangement and by mutual agreement? Why must there be that dominant relationship in which an order is barked out to someone to attend? Why could attendance not be by mutual arrangement and agreement, rather than being a requirement, as currently drafted?

I am also sad to see that there is a lacuna in respect of fingerprinting. I hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that appropriate personnel will be used to take the fingerprints. For example, a friend of mine, who is a devout Muslim, would not even shake my hand because I am a lady. That is understandable: it is his culture. Will the Minister reassure me that if there was an issue of culture, particularly in relation to this vulnerable group of people, there would be no repercussions and no insistence that the fingerprinting was carried out by someone inappropriate? Receiving the Minister’s reassurance on that matter during our discussion of the Bill would stand us in good stead.

I do not think that I look like a person who will be troublesome to any jurisdiction in which I travel. However, this summer, without any notice or warning whatever, when I was merely travelling through the United States of America, I had to be fingerprinted for the first time in my life. The Minister is looking at me with wide-eyed youth on his side. I do not know whether he has ever been fingerprinted. I had never been fingerprinted before in my life, but I did not require three or seven days’ notice. It was just done as a matter of course. Naturally, as a law-abiding citizen and wanting to facilitate my very swift passage through the United States of America, I raised no objections. But interestingly, my husband, who is a senior citizen—I do not think he would mind my saying that—also had to be fingerprinted. That was a bit of a shock to his system. But even he admitted that because it was required and because it was supposed to add to our safety and security, he would not put up a fight when he had to press his fingers on to the pad.

However, I want to know whether down the line the Minister is planning to fingerprint everybody and if not, why not. Are we not going to a halfway house here without facing the reality? Home Office officials have helpfully produced a number of impact assessments to go with the Bill. I should like to refer to the partial regulatory impact assessment on data capture and sharing powers for the border agencies. I know that the Minister will be familiar with everything in that document. His hon. Friends may laugh, but the Minister is in command of his brief and he will be familiar with everything in it.

According to that document, one of the purposes and intended effects of all these new provisions is to maintain

“an accurate movement record of passengers travelling to and departing from the UK, in support of further border control functions, including risk analysis and detecting those who have no right to be in the UK and assist in the fight against terrorists and criminals.”

The phrase

“travelling to and departing from the UK”

suggests to me that down the line we will have fingerprinting in line with what is happening in the US. I would particularly like the Minister to comment on that and on the last page of that impact assessment. Paragraph 19, entitled “Competition assessment”, states:

“All other EU Member States plan to verify identity of persons crossing their borders with biometrically enabled documents. Many other countries either already use biometrics as a key element of their border control (USA, Hong Kong, Singapore for example) or plan to do so.”

Once again, that looks as if this is only a halfway house and more is coming down the road, certainly to bring us in line with other EU member states. I should like the Minister to share his thinking on this.

My final point relates to costs. I have tried to familiarise myself with the impact assessments as best I can. The document on data capture and sharing powers deals with various areas of the financial impact, such as the potential obsolescence of landing cards and other manual processes which will provide a cost saving. Another part of the document allows for the redeployment of otiose Home Office staff who would be redeployed into this area too. Could the Minister give us some idea what the costs are for this area and what the cost savings might be in other areas by moving to a more reliable and secure system? Once again, is this a halfway house before we move fully down the road to full fingerprinting and biometric details of everyone coming in and out of our country?

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I will not go over the points made by the hon. Lady, but I should like to touch on a couple of issues specifically in relation to the period of notice that people will be given for fingerprint tests. I believe that the Government are making a large mistake by separating refugees from all other categories and suggesting that they can be called for fingerprinting within a three-day period. I shall give one brief personal example. It relates not to immigration but to planning and a letter that I once sent to my local council. I sent the letter well before the deadline for objections to a planning application, but it arrived 13 days after I had sent it, at which point the letter was out of time and could not be considered as a legitimate objection to the application.

I believe that people who are sent letters containing deadlines and days and times for fingerprinting will often receive them after that time. As a result, the system will be slowed down rather than speeded up. Many appointments will be missed and will have to be reissued, causing an administrative nightmare, whereas if we kept the existing regulations, whereby people are given seven days’ notice, we could pretty much guarantee that people would receive the notification in time and would be able to attend at some time—not at a specific time in the day, but at some point during a particular day. What clause 24 proposes—we tabled an amendment suggesting that the clause be deleted—will revert to the status quo and the powers in place under the 1999 Act. Three days’ notice is completely unworkable and I ask the Minister to think again.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I shall seek to address all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, but let me begin by introducing clause 24. Asylum claimants and their dependants are issued with an application registration card—the ARC card, which we talked about previously—when they make an asylum claim. At the moment, fingerprints are taken from the claimant and their dependants and stored on the card for identification purposes; it is a biometric identity card. However, in certain circumstances it is not possible to take fingerprints from or issue claimants with an ARC card at the point at which the application is made, for a variety of reasons. They may be asked to go to an asylum screening unit. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said, section 142 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides the Secretary of State with the power to issue a written notice that requires the principal claimant and any dependants to return to a specified place to provide fingerprints. At present, that must be at least seven days after the date of the notice. The notice must also provide the claimants with a minimum period of seven days within which they should attend. It may specify the time of day or hours during which they should attend.

Clause 24 makes two amendments to section 142 to bring it in line with our processing procedures, which have become more streamlined and more efficient since the 1999 Act was passed. First, the clause reduces the period between the date given in the notice as its date of issue and the date when an asylum seeker and any dependants can be required to attend for fingerprinting from seven days to three, as has been said. Secondly, the clause enables the Secretary of State to specify a day on which the asylum applicant must attend for fingerprinting, which cannot be less than three days after the notice’s issue date. It removes the requirement that the applicant attend at some point during a seven-day period.

The Secretary of State will continue to have the power to specify the time of day or hours—to answer the hon. Lady’s point—during which an asylum claimant and their dependants should attend for fingerprinting, as under the existing legislation.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Why can that not be by agreement and arrangement, rather than by an order?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I was coming on to address some of the hon. Lady’s points. She rightly wanted to bring out the logic and the reasons behind the change, and began by asking why we are making the change, what the evidence is, and why the requirement of three days. Under article 6 of the EU directive on reception conditions, which came into force in February this year, we are obliged within three days of a claim being lodged to provide every claimant with a document issued in their name, certifying their status as an asylum seeker. In our case, there are two principal documents that can be used to confirm that: the ARC card, which I have mentioned, and a document referred to as a standard acknowledgment letter. Hon. Members may have seen those at their advice surgeries. Either can be used to satisfy that document. The standard acknowledgment is obviously a far less secure document than the ARC card.

I am not making the point that we have an EU directive and that is why we have to do it within three days, but the clear expectation is that we issue a document within that time frame, not just for the convenience of the administrative staff, but because the directive recognises that it is important for asylum seekers to have a reliable document as quickly as possible so that they gain access to the support to which they are entitled. An ARC card is important so that individuals can receive benefits via the post office or other locations. The directive is driven not only by administrative convenience but by a wish to ensure that people are documented as quickly as possible.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

On a point of clarification, documents are to be provided within three days and there have been suggestions that people should be fingerprinted within three days. Realistically, with letters being processed and sent out, it is still going to take more than three days, so it is a false argument for the Government to suggest that they have to reduce the time from seven to three days on the basis that people must be provided with the document within three days.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

There are a couple of points to make. It is obviously in all our interests that multiple documents are not swirling round the system. It is much better to issue somebody with a more secure document as quickly as possible, rather than issuing standard acknowledgment letters, as well as other documents. We would rather issue one high-quality document to people, offering proof of identity and eligibility to claim support and benefits while they are here. There is also the EU directive.

As for postal delays and the administrative chaos that could ensue, most notices are handed to individuals in person when they attend the initial interview that all asylum seekers go through. Notices are frequently not put into the post; they are frequently handed to the individual in person. That is why the change can safely be made without causing chaos.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I want to push the Minister on this. Is he suggesting that there will be no circumstances in which documents are sent through the post?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I do not think that I was suggesting that. I hasten to point out that it is also in claimants’ interests to be documented to a high standard as quickly as possible. They can then claim the support to which they are entitled. That is in everybody’s interests, including those of the immigration and nationality directorate and the asylum seeker. That is the starting point.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Is not there a logic gap? The Minister says that, within three days, we can fingerprint the individuals, their children and their dependants. Then we can issue the ARC card, which will give them access to support from the National Asylum Support Service.

In throwing out some of the theories, what would happen if an individual and his or her dependants do not have the money to attend for fingerprinting? That would be rather ironic, would it not? The Minister wants to get the card to people as quickly as possible so that they will be entitled to the financial support that they deserve, yet they may not have the wherewithal to attend.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I am not saying that the notice would be received in person in every case. There may be circumstances in which it will arrive by post. We must be clear that for the claim to start to work properly, people must go through that process. It is in their direct interests that they are enabled and encouraged to do that as speedily as possible.

Many points that have been made are operational ones for the immigration and nationality directorate. They are not necessarily the concern of the Bill or other primary legislation. However, I accept the reasonable points that have been made. It is not the intention to place undue pressure on individuals to attend at a time of the system’s convenience or to make it extremely difficult for them to do so. We intend to move to a clearer system, where people are given an appointed time within a reasonable time frame, where we do not have to issue them with a temporary standard acknowledgment letter and where we can proceed straight to the ARC card. Those measures will speed up the process and make it more efficient.

I encourage hon. Members to attend an asylum screening unit, if they have not already done so, where they will see the nature of the operation. It is efficient and streamlined, but staff are trained to deal with the sensitive nature of the cases before them. They are highly skilled at doing so, and it would not be their intention to place undue pressure on the individual.

We all have an interest in the system working. It would be in the interests of both the immigration and nationality directorate and the asylum seeker to give a specified time for claimants to attend.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am going to tempt the Minister again down this path. If we are trying to reduce bureaucracy, to give people the immediacy of support and to identify people sensitively, why will he not go down the route of fingerprinting everybody, with the exception of the under-fives because their fingerprints are not be fully formed and, therefore, cannot be registered? Surely that is the simplest, most accurate and most exact route. The measure is another halfway house. I think that the fingerprinting of everybody is coming anyway and that this step is part of a process of erosion.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The hon. Lady is right that the provision does not extend to those under the age of five. It does affect all asylum claimants, however. We must be clear about that. It does not affect a particular group. The requirement applies to all asylum applicants and their dependants. I agree that that does not include those under five year, although it does affect everybody else. The majority of claimants will be issued with an ARC card at the first point they present in person or at their initial interview. We want to issue them with that document at the earliest possible time, and that is in their interests, too.

Clause 24 deals only with a minority of cases that have to be given an appointed time to return. I take the points about how the system needs to be implemented. It needs to work for both the individual and the staff who are administering it. We believe that it will achieve on both counts, but I hear the issues that have been raised.

The hon. Lady asked who would take the fingerprints and raised potential cultural issues. The immigration and nationality directorate is highly aware of those issues and care would always be taken when registering a person’s fingerprints. She broadened out the discussion and mentioned her experience on her summer holiday travelling round the US—

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

It was work.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The hon. Lady was not pleased about being fingerprinted—the first time in her life that it had happened. It made me wonder how many other Tory MPs have been fingerprinted. I am sure that you, Sir Nicholas, are not one of them, but there are allegations swirling around. However, we will not go there.

The hon. Lady asked whether we are looking forward to a world in which everyone is fingerprinted. The point about the biometric passport, which many countries are moving towards, and the e-borders system is to have an accurate record of who comes into and who leaves the country. That is the bedrock of the e-borders system.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I think the Minister is saying that basically we are going to fingerprint everyone on the way in and the way out. I should like some clarification. I asked the American immigration officer who took my fingerprints how long they would keep them on their database. He appeared not to understand the question because my fingerprints are in the USA database in perpetuity.

What I thought impressive about the information-sharing aspect of the system was that the immigration official also had the details of my visa, which had expired some time ago. That gives rise to a question. I think that under the 1999 Act there is a period of time by which fingerprints have to be destroyed. Does the Minister plan on keeping all fingerprints of anyone who falls under those categories in perpetuity in order to secure our borders?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I made some light-hearted remarks a few moments ago, but there is a connotation attached to fingerprinting: some people may find it uncomfortable or intrusive. That will change, because people who have travelled to the US, as the hon. Lady has, in the past few years—certainly since 2001—will have found that it is being carried out routinely. I have not been there since that time, but I believe that at certain ports the exit controls are becoming automated so that the US immigration authorities simply match the fingerprint to the record that they held on arrival and automate that part of the process.

People are going to become more familiar with the process in the next few years. We have made it clear that regardless of what happens with identity cards and whether the House finally approves that legislation, we are moving towards a biometric passport, which ultimately will contain a chip of people’s records.

Hon. Members may ask why we are committed to that system. It is precisely because the linkage between a unique personal identifier, be it a fingerprint or iris pattern, means that each person can register for only one document. That is the core strength of the biometric system. The photo and the signature are no longer a guarantee of identity and veracity.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I need to press the Minister one more time on the matter. Given everything that he has said about what the future holds for the security of this country—the Identity Cards Bill is being considered at present, although it is a moot point whether it will go through—why have the Minister and the Department taken the policy and strategic overview to move increasingly to halfway houses, or 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. houses? Why has the Minister not bitten the bullet and gone the whole way if the future he has been painting for us in words is the one that we are looking forward to? It seems that there will be more waste, more bureaucracy and more room for error when the Minister’s intention is ultimately to go to the control position whereby everyone is required to provide all their details immediately on entering or leaving the country.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The hon. Lady sounds dangerously as if she is moving towards supporting the Identity Cards Bill, which will create the national identity register, and will indeed do the things that she wants when she asks me why I will not go the whole hog. I can explain that although some people have imagined great conspiracies in the database, it simply links the basic information that is now on a passport application form to a unique biometric identifier. In doing so, not only can the authorities be more sure, the immigration officer at the desk can be more sure that the person before him is the person on the document, and the individual can be more sure that his travel document cannot be taken by someone else to go off round the world. People can have more confidence that their documents can be used only by them.

When an individual presents at an immigration desk, it is not a case of checking one fingerprint against the database every time. The immigration officer will do a one-to-one check of the chip in the passport with the biometric details before them. That is the check that will be carried out. I think that people will be reassured that their identity cannot be misappropriated.

The clause relates to fingerprints held on the ARC database. Section 141 provides for the destruction of records or prints after 10 years. I say to the hon. Lady that, with regard to immigration control, there is a purpose in keeping records for a period of time. The introduction of biometric visas in certain parts of the world has enabled the immigration and nationality directorate to compare fingerprints taken by entry clearance officers of people applying for visas. On occasion, they have been matched against asylum records and the fingerprints of people whose claims for asylum were turned down. That is relevant information to the entry clearance officers and the IND.

There is a purpose in retaining the records but at no time is it to withhold unduly from people what they are entitled to; it is to enable us to prove that people are who they say they are, which is one of the main functions of our border control systems. I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns, but that is the way we are going. The e-borders system is the basis of the clauses that we are about to discuss. Embarkation and entry controls will give the authorities a clear record of people coming into and leaving the country. Both are taken care of.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am sorry to have confused this with the other Bill, but the matter is important and is mentioned in the next clause. Is the Minister saying that the information that is held on me as a UK citizen on my ID card will be kept in perpetuity, but the information that is taken from an asylum seeker and their dependants will be destroyed after 10 years?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

People’s asylum claims will not be held in perpetuity, but for the time in which it is relevant for them to make a claim. The valid period of time for which to hold that data is considered to be 10 years. It is different for UK citizens; we believe that we would all benefit from being enrolled on a national identity register. That is a different matter. If we are going to introduce such a system, we need to keep a permanent record of an individual and their unique identifying characteristics. That is why there is a difference.

We have spent some time on the clause. We have strayed more widely than the clause permits, and I am grateful to you, Sir Nicholas, for that indulgence. It is important to discuss how we manage our border control and passport security in the future, and I am pleased to have been able to provide clarification. I say again to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington that it is not our intention to create a harsh or unduly punitive—[Interruption.]

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. I deplore mobile telephones being set to anything but silent in Committee. I hope that I shall not hear that noise again.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I believe that I have given the hon. Gentleman the assurances he requires. I hope that the provisions in the clause will help to achieve a more efficient system, and to give people entitlement to their benefits more quickly, which is something that I am sure that he, in his heart of hearts, would support.

The clause is important, and I ask the Committee to allow it to stand part of the Bill.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I will be brief. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. He has not assured me that there will be no problems as a result of the change. It will be impractical and unworkable to expect people to be fingerprinted within three days. In certain circumstances it will be fine, but on occasions it will not be possible and will cause further problems. We therefore do not support the clause.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I have been impressed with the honesty, integrity and sympathy with which the Minister has answered my questions on the clause. The provisions are important to all of us, not least because of the connotations that attach to having one’s fingerprints taken. However, I hope that what the Minister has said will reassure people outside the Committee, if not all the members of the Committee, that the process is necessary and will offer us additional security.

I appreciate that there could be some practical difficulties and, for the purpose of probing, I have tried to give the worst-case scenarios to the Minister. Despite the shortness of the notice period, I am satisfied that he has arrived at the provisions with reference to what is rolling down over us from Europe, and that there may be some merit in them. I therefore have no hesitation in telling him that, although the Liberal Democrats are pressing for a vote on the clause, I believe that my party will support it.

Clause 25 - Proof of right of abode

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Briefly—[Interruption.] I am in obvious danger of sending the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality to sleep, judging from the groan that he just emitted from a sedentary position. Either that, or he is unwell and should leave the Committee.

I want to ask a couple of questions on the clause. There is no doubt that this area of legislation could do with a consolidating Bill. If we consider the list at the end of the Bill, it seems ridiculous. We can see all the legislation to which we must refer: the Immigration Acts in 1971 and 1988, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, then by way of a change, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, and then this Bill. Interestingly enough, clause 25 is slightly arrogant, and I could not let it pass by—although I understand it is a matter of drafting form—that we hear that it will be subject to the Identity Cards Act 2006.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

2005.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Minister’s optimism is obviously boundless. He obviously thinks that it will come in in 2005, so there is a drafting error here, to which we shall return on Report and Third Reading. I urge Ministers to think about doing some consolidation work, because all that legislation is a minefield to get through.

I want to make a couple of points. First, the proposed subsection (9)(e) mentions “a certificate of entitlement”. Can the Minister confirm what that would include? Does it cover work permits? I am interested in knowing what the ambit of “certificate of entitlement” is. I could send a letter saying that my friend is entitled to right of abode here, so I would like that point clarified. Secondly, proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) refer to

“a United Kingdom passport describing him as a British citizen,”

and

“a United Kingdom passport describing him as a British subject with the right of abode in the United Kingdom”.

Surely it should just be a United Kingdom passport. Is not the description of “a British citizen” and

“a British subject with the right of abode”

otiose? That understanding is probably the result of my ignorance, rather than the poor drafting of officials. I should like an explanation from the Minister.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I was interested in the reference to the Identity Cards Act, which does not yet exist. Is one of the implications here that it would be anticipated that the identity card would be used as a travel document, in the way that is the case in the countries operating the Schengen agreement, which does not currently apply to the UK? Secondly, I noticed that proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) refer to information that will be on the identity card. That is an interesting point, since I do not recall anything in the Identity Cards Bill or in the debate on the Bill that specified what information would be on the card. We seem to be specifying in this Bill the information that will be on a card, which is covered by a completely separate Bill that still has to find its way through Parliament.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I welcome you to the Committee again, Sir Nicholas. First, on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, schedule 1 to the other legislation describes only what may be on the identity card register. It includes and has always included immigration status as part of the data. That is clear in the schedule.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

There was clarity about what data were going to be on the register, but that is different from what data will be on the card.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The terminology in proposed new paragraphs (c) and (d) refers to the Act—what we hope will be an Act—and that of course talks about the interplay between the cards and the database. I think that my hon. Friend said in the debate on the Identity Cards Bill that it could more readily be called the identity register Bill. I assure him, whether he likes it or not, that the terminology relates to what is in the database under what we hope will be the Identity Cards Act.

This is simply a tidying-up clause. I know that some Opposition Members bristle any time that a Minister says, “Don’t worry; it is just a little tidying-up clause”, but it is and it is overdue. For example, the category of “citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” has not existed since 1983, when the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force, yet the reference remains on the statute book. I have said before—I cannot remember to whom—that I agree with the notion that at some time in the near future, legislative time permitting, there should be consolidation to bring many of these Acts together. Every time that we bring in another Act—they do come along with alarming frequency—it highlights lacunae or mistakes in previous Acts going back to 1971 and beyond. The point about the constant tidying-up, of which this clause is part, is well made and I support it. However, the clause is, as the title says, principally about the right of abode rather than anything else.

There is a clear distinction between a British citizen and a British subject, which I shall come to in a moment. A certificate of entitlement is simply about the entitlement to that abode and is invariably a little sticker, rather like a visa, in a non-UK passport. There will be historical reasons why people have the right of abode but choose not to have or are not eligible for a UK citizen’s passport in the full sense. Partly, this is a historical trail. We need a reference in the first instance to a UK passport describing the person as a British citizen. The next reference is to a British subject with the right of abode in the UK.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

May I put it to the Minister the other way round? Could there be a situation in which someone was the holder of a valid UK passport but did not have the right of abode in the UK?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Yes, in the terms that I have just laid out. It may be that someone has the right of access with a non-UK passport and needs the certification of entitlement. There are people with UK passports who, as I have suggested, are subjects rather than full citizens and will have the right of abode but not all the other rights afforded under citizenship. The clause is just about tidying these things up. The certification of entitlement covers another category. Yes, of course it is entirely appropriate to put in the elements about ID cards that will come, but if we are talking about arcane references, the principal point is that the clause replaces in its entirety section 3(9) of the Immigration Act 1971, which of course has been amended at various times since 1971 but talks in terms about something called patriality.

Mrs. Gillanrose—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall happily give way to the hon. Lady if she can tell me what patriality is in all its glory.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Perhaps matriality but not patriality. I want to take the Minister back—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I gave way for the hon. Lady to define patriality.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

No, I shall not do that. I understand that someone could be a UK passport holder and not be entitled to a right of abode in this country, so where are the people with a valid UK passport who cannot have a right of abode in this country?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

There may well the odd case like that, but I do not think that I was suggesting that. We need to maintain the distinction between those three principal categories: a UK citizen, a UK subject with a right of abode and those with a certificate of entitlement in a non-UK passport. There may well have been since 1971, although it is less and less the case, a whole series of people who fell into the category that the hon. Lady suggests through British overseas citizenship and other terminologies that are becoming less and less important. The clause goes back to the original 1971 clause and all the subsequent amendments to bring it bang up to date. If I protest unduly that the clause only tidies up, the hon. Lady will view what is going on with deep suspicion.

Patriality, by the by, simply means a right of abode in the UK, but I had to look it up about three times. It has nothing to do with patriarchy, although some might suggest otherwise.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I have been listening to the Minister with great interest. Obviously to get into this country, people have to come through a port of entry. May a holder of a UK passport as a resident of an overseas territory go through the EU channel or must he go through the other channel at points of entry? That is important to these people who feel great loyalty to this country.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It is an interesting point. However, I am sure that you, Sir Nicholas, and the Committee might lynch me, at least metaphorically, if we dwelt unduly on it. I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I will find out momentarily. Certainly, overseas territory citizens have no right of abode in this country. That is precisely what I meant when I said that some categories of people, who do not have a UK passport but a version of it such as an overseas territories passport, do not have a right of abode. I hope to find out shortly whether they go through the blue channel, rather than the green or red. However, that is not germane to the clause, which simply tidies up and makes clear what is required for proof of right of abode.

Clause 26 - Provision of information to immigration officers

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I beg to move amendment No. 115, in clause 26, page 12, line 26, at end insert—

‘()The Secretary of State may make an order under this paragraph only if satisfied that the nature of the information sought is such that there are likely to be circumstances in which it can be required under subsection (2) without breaching Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)).’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 117, in clause 27, page 13, line 38, leave out

‘there are likely to be circumstances in which’.

No. 131, in clause 31, page 16, line 17, at end insert—

‘()The Secretary of State may make an order under subsection (4) only if satisfied that the nature of the information sought is such that there are likely to be circumstances in which it can be required under subsection (2) without breaching Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)).’.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

There is an error on the amendment paper. Amendment No. 117 relates to clause 27, page 13, line 38. My copy of the amendment paper refers to line 8.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that the amendment paper that I have is correct? We are grateful to him for raising the issue, but I assure him that the Committee now has the amendment paper with amendment No. 117 correct in its entirety.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I am working off yesterday’s papers.

Amendments Nos. 115 and 131 are probing amendments that place safeguards on the exercise of powers in clauses 26 and 31. The wording of the proposed subsection is taken from clause 27. If it was thought necessary to include clause 27(7) in a Bill that is already certified as complying with the Human Rights Act 1998, why not do the same in clauses 26 and 31? In what circumstances does the Secretary of State suggest that the provision is necessary in clause 27 but not in clauses 26 or 31?

The purpose of amendment No. 117 is to rewrite clause 27(7). Instead of stating that

“The Secretary of State may make an order specifying a kind of information under subsection (5)(a) only if satisfied that the nature of the information is such that there are likely to be circumstances in which it can be required under subsection (2) without breaching Convention rights”,

subsection (7) would read:

“The Secretary of State may make an order specifying a kind of information under subsection (5)(a) only if satisfied that the nature of the information is such that it can be required under subsection (2) without breaching Convention rights”.

The amendment probes the drafting of the clause. The drafting appears to permit the Secretary of State to make an order if he can envisage circumstances in which requirement of the information detailed in subsection (5)(a) would not breach human rights. Even in this particular case, he knows that that is not so. We should also like the Secretary of State’s assurance that he must be satisfied that requiring information in the cases covered by the order will not breach convention rights.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Clause 26 is one of the first clauses to lay the legal basis for the e-borders scheme, so, in that respect, it is an important clause. As members of the Committee will see, the clause details the type of information that border agencies can request from transport operators. The clause deals specifically with the provision of information to immigration officers, but two of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments cover subsequent clauses, so I shall also talk about the provision of information to police, as well as the clause’s more general powers.

The purpose of amendment No. 115, as the hon. Gentleman said, is to mirror the requirements that are already contained in clauses 27 and 28 in order to make explicit that any request for information under paragraph 27 of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 must comply with the Human Rights Act.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no need to introduce such a requirement, as all requests from an immigration officer under schedule 2 to the 1971 Act must comply with the Human Rights Act. As he will see, the Bill is structured such that clause 26 amends the 1971 Act, whereas clauses 27 and 28 are new provisions. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the powers in schedule 2—powers already contained in the 1971Act—must be compliant. For that reason, there is no need to take that requirement from clauses 27 and 28 into clause 26. I assure him that the fact that we have included it in those two further clauses—I hope that he welcomes that—indicates that there is no wish to evade the principles of the Human Rights Act, which this Government passed.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Why has it been decided that the requirement is necessary in clauses 27 and 28, but not in clause 26?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I think that I explained that clause 26 amends the 1971 Act, which is compliant with the Human Rights Act. The way in which immigration service staff operate must be compliant with that Act. That answers the hon. Gentleman’s question, and if he looks at the Bill, he will see that clauses 27 and 28 create new powers for the police in respect of passenger, crew and freight information. I hope that he makes that distinction. As I said, the powers have been included, and I hope that he will take that as a sign of good faith. We want to ensure that there is no doubt that the clauses are compliant, which is why there is no need to replicate in clause 26 the duty that we have placed in clauses 27 and 28.

Amendment No. 117 concerns a slightly different point: compliance with convention rights when specifying information to be set out by order. Clause 27(7) says:

“The Secretary of State may make an order specifying”

what passenger, crew or service data may be obtained

“only if he is satisfied that the nature of the information”

is such—and this is the key phrase—

“that there are likely to be circumstances in which it can be required ... without breaching Convention rights”.

If I understand the effect of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment correctly, it would raise the bar slightly by deleting the phrase,

“there are likely to be circumstances in which”.

He has raised an interesting point, but I want to explain why we would resist that higher test for the disclosure of information, which is allowed by the order made by the Secretary of State. If we were to agree to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, the Secretary of State and the Treasury Minister would have to be sure that the information provided under clause 27 would not breach convention rights. They would have to be sure in advance that there would be no breach. We believe that such a test would be unworkable in practice, because the Ministers concerned would have to have absolute certainty that convention rights would not be breached.

It may help if I explain a little about how e-borders will work. They will work sometimes by general and bulk data being made available to the immigration service and the police, which would make it extremely difficult to be able to have absolute certainty that the information provided would be fully compliant, in the way that hon. Gentleman wishes. The test that we have imposed in the clause offers sufficient protection. It means that people have to be mindful of the conditions of section 6 of the Human Rights Act. In addition, section 6 of the Act would allow a challenge where a person considered that their convention rights had been breached. The Act imposes a requirement on the police not to use the powers unless that is necessary and proportionate.

Amendment No. 131 appears to have the same intention as clause 31(5)(b). I refer the hon. Gentleman to that, because it contains the test that he seeks in amendment No. 131. The provision that he wishes to insert at the end of line 17 is already included in clause 31(5)(b) so the amendment would be entirely unnecessary.

We do not necessarily differ with the hon. Gentleman. The Government introduced the Human Rights Act and we intend that these powers should be exercised with due care and regard to the provisions of section 6 of that Act. We have enshrined it on the face of the Bill in respect of the parts where we need to, but in relation to this clause, the existing legislation is already covered by the Human Rights Act. The day-to-day operations of the immigration service are also covered by the provisions of that Act. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my reasoning and withdraw his amendment.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Given that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I shall be brief. We have gone over many aspects of the clause. It is probably not understood by everyone that the Secretary of State may make an order requiring captains of arriving ships or aircraft to provide immigration officers with a passenger list showing the names and nationality of those arriving and the particulars of the crew. Now we are dealing with leaving ships too.

The Minister will know that my party’s proposal to reintroduce full embarkation controls is still our policy. Are these new powers a substitute for reintroducing embarkation controls? This passenger information power is not new. There are substantial powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002. They oblige disclosure on a great number of issues, far beyond the names and addresses of passengers, and properly so. It might be helpful if the Minister could let me know, if not today then in a letter, how often those powers have been used and with what results.

I have a few questions about the powers in this clause. Although there is an offence under clauses 27 and 28 of not providing information, there seems to be no provision for a failure under clause 26 to be an offence. If the requirement in clause 26 is not carried out, is it an offence?

There is also a slight difference between clauses 26 and 27 to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention. The responsible person under clause 26 is the owner or agent of the aircraft or ship, and the captain. Under clause 27 the responsible persons are different. They do not include the captain of the ship. Why is the captain involved in clause 26, but not clause 27? Does the Minister accept that there might be some difficulty for a captain of an aircraft who might be faced with this kind of information very late in the day? How far in advance and how long after the event can it be sought? Could it be sought during the course of the flight? If the information is not provided, could the authorities instruct the carrier not to carry the passenger in question?

Under paragraph (2)(b), further particulars are required because the passenger list must merely show the names and nationality or citizenship of the passengers. In relation to the crew, I assume that the “particulars” of members of the crew are limited to exactly the same requirements—namely, name and nationality. Does that have a cost implication for carriers?

I have spoken in previous debates about the cost implication for carriers of having to provide information about their passenger lists—photocopying burdens and so on. I had a helpful meeting earlier this summer with a company called Clove Business Systems, which supplies the passport-copying technology being trialled by the Home Office. The company had read my remarks about the financial burden on carriers and told me that its systems could be very cost-effective, and effective in every other way, too. Will the Minister confirm to me in writing that his discussions with that company are still continuing as it has an excellent approach to the matter? I look forward to hearing from him in that respect and I hope that he can deal with the questions that I have raised.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. We have had lengthy discussions about generating the information in the first instance and on what sort of laws and powers will subsequently prevail. Many of the points that he raises are entirely fair and I will deal with them.

Clause 26 is about providing information on passenger lists and crew in advance of arrival. On the hon. Gentleman’s more general point, I know from a previous manifestation as a Transport Minister that we were able to stop or turn back flights under security and terrorism legislation. Those powers prevail but, within the context of the Bill, they are not required as they are available elsewhere. The e-borders and border management aim to push back the border to international airports around the world before passengers even get on the plane, which must be right and proper.

The hon. Gentleman is right in broad terms—[Interruption.] There’s that chair again, but nice and quiet this time. The e-borders and border management projects effectively restore embarkation controls and I make no political point in that respect. The last Conservative Government started the removal of embarkation controls and this Government carried it on because, in simple terms, with more than 100 million people coming in and out of the country, a paper provision for embarkation controls was no longer appropriate. In crude terms, there is much more going on than the hon. Gentleman suggests. The proposal utilises technology and resources to restore that facility so that we have a much better picture of who is coming in and out of the country and, in an intelligence-led, proactive way, can start to target our resources.

The hon. Gentleman made a fair point about the captain’s role and I will find out about it. I suspect that it has much to do with the point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about clause 26 amending the Immigration Act 1971, whereas clauses 27 and 28 introduce new powers. Clause 26 amends paragraph 27 of the Immigration Act 1971 and relates to the passengers or crew on a ship or aircraft. It widens the provision so that it applies to a responsible person—it refers to the captain—who can be required to provide information. In one sense, therefore, clause 26 is outlined in terms of previous Acts, whereas clauses 27 and 28 cover new powers in the current context. I am sorry to dwell on all three clauses, but they are interlocked.

We want to reach a stage at which—to address the wider points that the hon. Gentleman makes—this is not mistakenly called advanced passenger information. The hon. Gentleman made a point about offence. He is quite right that a later clause—clause 29—refers to clauses 27 and 28. That is because the offences are caused under clauses 27 and 28, whereas clause 26 is more about outlining the nature of the information that should be made available to immigration officers. Clause 27 elaborates police powers in relation to passenger and crew information, clause 28 does the same for freight, and clause 29 covers offences in relation to clauses 27 and 28. Clause 26 is simply the definitional building block that bridges the existing law and the new powers outlined in clauses 27 and 28.

Having addressed all the points that I marked down, and having said that I would deal with the others in writing, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 27 - Passenger and crew information: police powers

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I beg to move amendment No. 116, in clause 27, page 13, line 30, leave out ‘generally or’.

I shall be brief. The effect of the amendment would be to prohibit the Secretary of State from making orders that apply generally. Will the Minister clarify whether passenger information orders under paragraph 17(2) of schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, as amended, and the Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002, include the power to make orders that apply generally, rather than requiring that a specific written order be made in respect of each vehicle? If that is the case, why was it felt necessary to take a different approach as far as this clause is concerned?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Broadly, the powers under schedule 7 of the 2000 Act are restricted to the counter-terrorism context and to an officer’s role as the examining officer. They also allow only specified information to be requested. Through clause 27 we seek to broaden those powers, not just in terms of moving beyond counter-terrorism to include serious crime and general policing powers and requests, but also in terms of experience. It might be the case that the information required concerns a specific flight, which would already be covered under the terrorism legislation. However, if we are to move to a proactive intelligence-led approach, we should take into account that the information required might in some cases—rare cases, I would think—relate to the carrier rather than to a specific flight. More generally, the difficulties and problems in terms of serious crime—immigration-related or otherwise—or terrorism might be specific to a route rather than a specific flight on a route. We think that if the clause were limited in the way intended by the amendment, that would not only undermine all that we seek to do in relation to e-borders and the border management programme and gathering information in general, but work against what the entire Committee sees as right in terms of gathering the information.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

On that point, can the Minister clarify whether he means a specific airline or route? Surely the word “specific” could have been included, rather than “generally”?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I do not think that that is the case, given that we are talking about one or more specified ships or aircraft. Clearly, by definition, that would be time-limited, or if not, so open that it might as well be general anyway. We need a broader definition so that there is no confusion. In some cases, it might be a general requirement under subsection (2), but in others, it may be specific to one or more specified ships or aircraft. All that we are doing with e-borders and border management is to afford the police and the immigration services as much flexibility as possible. I do not see any need or desire—short of undermining what we are trying to do with e-borders and border management—to get so narrowly defined as to leave out “may apply generally”.

We want to get to a stage at which, by using technology and this sort of information request, we can remove any potential notional threat as far away from our borders as possible. As I say, it is more often than not the specific route that affords that flexibility, and the concentration on a route, based on broad intelligence. However, in some cases, for completeness, I include the point about carriers. That is something above and beyond simply a specified number of ships or aircraft.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

May I push the Minister a little further on that point? Is he thinking about every aeroplane coming from a specific destination, or about specific airlines or specific routes? Is he thinking about every aeroplane coming from destination x coming into the country?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In many cases, without going into substantive detail, that happens now. It is simply a matter of fact: the gangs involved in serious crime and drugs are invariably ahead of the curve and change their routes accordingly. It is a matter of fact that at any given time, some routes in and out of the country are more prone to specific criminal activities than others, be it drugs, trafficking or whatever else. We think that the flexibility afforded by the simple little phrase “apply generally” allows the police the flexibility to, on the one hand, pursue particular routes on an intelligence-led basis and, frankly, on the other, to build up and generate that intelligence in the first place. It will then not be on an ad hoc and anecdotal basis; once e-borders are in place, the intelligence basis of activities will be substantially different.

With other dimensions, we have an excellent network of airline liaison officers—we do not have enough of them by any means, but I have seen plenty of them, although I am not a globetrotter—that is strong and growing. They are entirely voluntary professionals, working with carriers, which enhances and boosts our intelligence-based focus on specific flights or routes. Although I am sure that it is not the intention, the amendment would narrow the scope and potential for e-borders to work as effectively as we want them to do. I am sure that that is not the hon. Gentleman’s intention, so I ask him to withdraw the amendment and allow clause 27 to stand part of the Bill.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

With the Minister’s reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I shall attempt to be brief. I have a few specific questions first. The Minister will know that the partial regulatory impact assessment says:

“The timescales involved in bringing forward this legislation have meant that we have been unable to consult fully with industry on the specific detail of the provisions prior to introduction.”

Has it now been possible to consult industry fully on these matters? Has the Small Business Service said anything about these provisions? There is an element of rush. If the Minister cannot deal with any of these matters now, I would be happy for him to write to me.

Secondly, how long will data collected under the clause be kept and stored and with whom could those data be shared? This is a very wide clause, obliging the owner or agent of a ship—I raise the point about the captain again—to comply with any requirement imposed by a police officer to provide “passenger or service information”. Interestingly, passenger or service information is defined as information that relates to passengers—that does not help us much.

There are one or two issues in this regard. The limit, under subsection (4), is that the information must be “for police purposes”. I looked up what police purposes means in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; I remember the debates on the issue quite well. Police purposes are defined under section 21 of that Act as any of the following:

“the prevention ... of criminal offences”—

which is perfectly proper—

“safeguarding national security”—

which is also perfectly proper—and

“such other purposes as may be specified.”

That strikes me as an extremely wide provision. How many other purposes have been specified pursuant to that section and what is the overlap with the clause? Can the Minister assure me that the information to be provided is limited to dates and places of birth and full names and addresses, or how wide could the information be? Is there a time limit on providing it? One is not set out in the Bill. Is there the danger that a badly intentioned Government—not that this is one—or authorities could go on a fishing expedition? The question is a parallel to that about the Identity Cards Bill: for what purposes can the information be collected? Is it limited to suspected immigration issues, crime and terror, or is there a wider network of persons who may be able to share in the information provided?

Finally, do the persons about whom the information is collected have a right to know that information about them has been collected and passed on to authorities, or will they be blissfully unaware of that for ever?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Again, the hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points. Let me try to deal with them. There has been a meeting with key industry stakeholders. As I implied when responding on the previous occasion, those talks are ongoing and have been very productive. In addition, a letter summarising the proposals and providing details of where to access the legislation and the partial RIA was sent to many stakeholders. A number of follow-up meetings took place with air, sea and rail carriers, trade organisations, handling agents and airport and seaport operators. The meetings considered the provision in more detail and discussed a number of the more practical issues, and there were comments on the partial RIA as well as further discussions on e-borders as it moves into a new phase.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those discussions will continue. Clearly, we need the industry onside in these matters. The consultation process on the Bill finished on 30 September, but discussions are continuing. Because these things are interwoven, let me say now that specific concerns of the freight industry, rather than more general passenger carriers, have since been discovered through consultation. Many of the Government amendments to clause 28 are a direct response to that consultation. The point on consultation is therefore well made.

Many of the hon. Gentleman’s other points are entirely fair. It is not the same as the debate on the Identity Cards Bill, in the sense that advance passenger information is entirely time-limited. As I have already confirmed, extremely limited information is available in advance on what passengers are on what plane at what time on any given day of the year. The wider issue of people travelling, and the nature and regularity of that travel, can be garnered from elsewhere.

Clause 27 is about broadening the nature of the information available to include e-borders and the border management programme system. The clause goes beyond the information acquisition powers that are currently available under the Terrorism Act 2000. Those powers are extremely limited.

There has been that degree of consultation. Concerns about data retention are unfounded in the sense of the limited and immediate nature of the data. Industry’s concerns have been recognised, and we shall continue to work with it. It is entirely fair to say that, as e-borders and the border management programme unfold, we must make people aware that the authorities are likely to hold advance passenger information and passenger record information.

We can talk about the practicalities of that and about making people aware in advance that that information is held. However, rather like the constant repetition of themes in the debate on the Identity Cards Bill, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the provisions in the Data Protection Act 1998 are as relevant to this Bill as those in the Identity Cards Bill are. In accordance with the Data Protection Act, the information cannot lawfully be stored for any longer than is necessary. That is the braces part of a belt-and-braces approach. It is very time-limited information, which we want to use proactively and in an intelligence-led fashion. We do not wish to use it for fishing.

The bulk of the information is potentially enormous, and that will be a complete waste of valuable time and resources. Having given those assurances, I urge that clause 27 stand part of the Bill. I shall mention the specifics about consultation with the freight lobby when we look at clause 28.

Clause 28 - Freight information: police powers

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move amendment No. 108, in clause 28, page 14, line 4, leave out ‘and aircraft’ and insert ‘, aircraft and vehicles’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 109 to 111.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As I suggested in my previous contribution, the amendment was tabled because of the interruption that the general election caused. We were unable to conduct external consultation on the provisions, as the hon. Member for Woking said in debate on clause 27.

We have since held detailed discussions with the industry. It raised concerns that owners or agents or ships or aircrafts were, in the main, unlikely to be able to comply fully with the clause as drafted, because they either do not hold or do not have access to detailed information on the consignments that they carry.

I remind hon. Members that this refers to freight. Although carriers may hold relevant information on how goods are being transported, other parties involved in the freight supply chain, such as the importer or exporter or their agents, would be best placed to provide information on the consignments. Amendments Nos. 108, 109, 110 and 111 simply reflect those concerns on the face of the Bill.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Can the Minister help me on that point?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall try my very best.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Minister said that the interruption caused by the general election led to the Government having continued discussions with the different stakeholders. The Bill was published on 22 June. While I am all for the Government making every effort to get a Bill correct in detail, I am concerned at the number of Government amendments that have been tabled, given that the Bill was published well after the general election.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It is a fair point. Either that, or I am in a generous mood. We felt that an early June publication date some six weeks after the election was more appropriate, with the caveat that more work needed doing, so that prior to the summer and a substantive parliamentary stage people had a chance to see what was in it. It should be remembered that in the first instance we published the five-year strategy in February and that informs much of what is in the Bill.

It is a matter of choice. The hon. Gentleman is entirely fair on that point. We could have waited until September or October before getting the Bill into the public domain. We choose otherwise, with the caveat that the Government do not know everything and get everything right all the time. The Whip looks shocked and so I shall pay for that later. The second caveat is that, having published something, we are still open to dialogue especially when it impacts on people so much.

We think that clause 28, as we propose to amend it, is all the better for that substantive scrutiny. I suspect that we would have been more than open to those concerns from the industry, whether we had published the Bill in June or September. It is merely a matter of timing, but it is a fair point. People have to take a view on that, as we have done. As amended by these amendments and informed by the freight industry, the clause will be much more robust.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I should like to ask the Minister why the clause is part of the Bill. The Bill is supposed to be about immigration, asylum and nationality but the clause appears to be solely about freight. I cite the example of the 58 Chinese immigrants who died in a sealed container. That information would not have been readily available if details were requested on what that ship was carrying. The clause does not relate to the Bill and I seek clarification of why it has been included.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

If it did not relate to the Bill, parliamentary counsel and the House authorities would have ruled the thing out of order. The hon. Gentleman answers his own question. Freight is utilised and exploited for people trafficking. I pass no comment, for obvious reasons, on the example cited by the hon. Gentleman, but information on freight is absolutely essential in fighting serious crime such as smuggling, immigration offences and people trafficking. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see that, he is being obtuse.

Clause 29 - Offence

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move amendment No. 63, in clause 29, page 15, line 6, at end insert

‘in England and Wales or 6 months in Scotland or Northern Ireland’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 64.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The amendments reflect, in a tidier fashion, the differences in penalties and sentences from those that were originally intended. It is another example of a listening Government who, having recognised the mistake in legalese, correct it. I commend the amendments and the clause to the Committee.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Would it be appropriate to ask the Minister if he considers that because these matters could be complicated and serious, there should have been a provision for them to be triable on indictment in the Crown court as well as in the magistrates court because of the increased penalties? It is just a small point.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall not go into that now but I am more than happy to look at it and get back to the hon. Gentleman.

Clause 31 - Duty to share information

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 31, page 15, line 39, after ‘State’, insert ‘and the Treasury jointly’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

Government amendments Nos. 31, 32, 42, 44, 47 and 50 to 52.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

These are very important matters, which we will not be able to discuss in the 20 seconds left before we adjourn. The powers in the clause in respect of the duty to share information far more readily reflect what we want to do than otherwise. The amendments use the word “Treasury” quite a lot, which is always a good thing for a Minister who is not a Treasury Minister.

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill - Standing Committee E

Clause 31 - Duty to share information

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking Government amendments Nos. 31, 32, 42, 44, 47 and 50 to 52.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Before the clock so rudely interrupted me, I was explaining how, in substance, much of what this group of amendments does is simply to add “the Treasury” where at present the Bill says “the Secretary of State”, referring to the Home Secretary. It is a technical amendment in the sense that the clause concerns the duty to share information among those agencies and services that come under the purview of the Home Office—the police service and the immigration service—with, as can be seen in clause 31(1)(c), Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which naturally comes under the Treasury. It is therefore appropriate that both the Home Office and the Treasury are involved in the duty to share information. All that the amendments do, in the main, is to extend to the Treasury all references to what the Secretary of State should or should not be doing, largely because Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is involved. It is terribly straightforward.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I beg to move amendment No. 119, in clause 31, page 15, line 43, leave out from ‘voyages’ to end of line 2 on page 16.

Subsection (4)(b) gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging further powers on what is described as “other matters”. The amendment would remove those “other matters” that the Secretary of State may specify. I should be grateful if the Minister indicates what those “other matters” could or would be.

I also seek further clarification. Under the new powers, different agencies would have a duty to share information rather than the power to share information. Given the wide-ranging nature of what “other matters” may be, does the Minister feel that there may be some confusion among the agencies as to what information they have a duty to share?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The agencies clearly hold intelligence information related to freight and travel that is not obtained under the powers specified in clause 31(4)(a)—the substantial part of the subsection—and which may be useful for the purposes of another agency or agencies. The amendment would preclude any of that information gathered under entirely different legal auspices outside the Bill’s scope. It would prevent any of the agencies sharing those data with other agencies, whether they were substantive enough to matter in terms of the pursuit of crime or of any other matter. It is overly limiting.

I suspect that the confusion arises partly from the legalese. “Other matters” does not refer generically to every other matter that anyone could possibly imagine. It means, as I understand it, other matters germane to the existent and statutory base of each and every one of those agencies. Given that the clause is all about the duty to share information above and beyond that alluded to in other parts of the clause, the amendment would limit things in such a way as to render the duty to share not quite redundant, but extremely restricted. I am pretty sure that that is not the intention. The hon. Gentleman is trying to narrow the clause from the perspective—albeit inadvertent—that it is far too wide at present. “Other matters” does not mean anything we fancy; the definition is much stricter than that.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 31, page 16, line 17, at end insert—

‘(6A)An order under subsection (4) may not specify—

(a)a power of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs if or in so far as it relates to a matter to which section 7 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (c. 11) (former Inland Revenue matters) applies, or

(b)a matter to which that section applies.’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 46.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

These amendments follow on naturally from the earlier Government amendments. There is an interface between the assorted powers and responsibilities of the Treasury and the Home Office with, on the one hand, HM Revenue and Customs, and, on the other, immigration services and the police. Amendment No. 33 inserts a new subsection in clause 31 to make it clear that the powers specified by the Secretary of State and the Treasury, jointly, as determined on the earlier amendment, should not apply to information collected by HM Revenue and Customs under the former Inland Revenue’s powers.

When we are talking about borders, immigration and security, it is clear that the customs wing rather than the revenue wing of the new joint organisation has the germane data that we seek permission to share with other agencies. Government amendment No. 46 provides similar clarification in respect of disclosure to the security and intelligence agencies. Without wishing to provoke suspicion and cynicism, this is an extremely straightforward amendment with no tricks involved. I have no cards up my sleeve.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

This important clause deals with what is now a duty, rather than a power, on a number of people—the Home Office, the police and the Revenue—to share information. Many of us will have wondered over the years why we do not have a unified presence—a unified border force—at our ports. Indeed, it is my party’s policy to create a single border agency to replace what happens at the moment. When you or I land at Dover, Sir Nicholas—in my case, having come back from France with cigarettes; in your case, it is probably with other things—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Wine.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Thank you so much, Sir Nicholas. At Dover, we find first of all the police and then customs and immigration. They are all there with their different powers. It is not only my party that argues for a unified border force; large numbers of people in the Labour party do so too.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Name them.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am going to. Large numbers of people have considered the matter extremely carefully. Of course, I refer to the Home Affairs Committee report “Border controls”, which was ordered to be printed on 23 January 2001. That Select Committee was dominated by the Labour party and was chaired by Mr. Robin Corbett, now Lord Corbett. It contained seven Labour Members. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Dover (Gwyn Prosser) was a member at that time.

Gwyn Prosser (Dover) (Lab) indicated dissent.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I think the hon. Gentleman wishes to distance himself from the report, which is not surprising if he was not a member of the Committee.

The Committee considered carefully a great many matters connected with border controls. I shall quote just one or two important paragraphs from its report. It said:

“It has been put to the Committee by those who have most direct experience of working with the government agencies at ports—the port operators and carriers—that we should consider combining those agencies into a single frontier force.”

The Committee went on to consider the pros and cons of doing that. I recall that very well: I was on the Committee at the time.

We took evidence from a number of persons, including the Dover harbour board, which gave a direct statement as follows, citing an example of the nonsense that is created when three different agencies exchange information:

“I could give you a very specific example that happened not very long ago. An inbound family in an Escort van in Dover, legitimately [in] a white van ... They had been on an innocent day trip and were passport controlled, as is normal, by immigration and were then selected by Kent Police Ports Unit for a check for some reason, unaccountably, and were asked to off-load the van. They did so, and then were told they could reload it and go—only to find that 10 yards down the road they were stopped by Customs who asked them to unload the van again, and equally found nothing. It was not a target, as far as I am aware, it was a cold pull on both counts ... [It took] an hour, probably, against a target time of less than five minutes”.

The report went on to talk about information exchange and information sharing. It rightly pointed out—this is nearly five years ago—that information

“can be passed between the police, Customs and Immigration Service under legal provisions called statutory gateways. It is only legally possible to exchange information about specific cases. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, when fully implemented, will make it possible for bulk data to be exchanged between Customs and the Immigration Service. Customs are also seeking changes to legislation to make it possible for them to do the same with the police and other agencies.”

In taking that philosophy forward, the Minister has proposed a clause about the duty to exchange information.

The report also stated:

“Another example of lack of joined-up working are the powers of different officers on duty at ports.”

Dover has customs, immigration and police officers on duty, but all three agencies are not represented in some smaller ports. On the west coast of Great Britain, there are several ports where the only official presence is the police. Will the Minister comment on possible developments in that connection over the past four years? Are all the agencies now represented at all the ports that were not covered at the time of the report?

Gwyn Prosser (Labour, Dover)

If the hon. Gentleman had joined me in a recent visit to the port of Dover, he would have seen how inter-agency working had changed dramatically since 2001. The very officers with whom the hon. Gentleman discussed these matters then are now saying that there is far more integration; they sit in the same office and share the same databases. There has been a lot of movement; the system is working.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished member of the Home Affairs Committee. He takes a great interest in these matters and I always respect what he has to say. He referred to the fact that there were three different agencies in the same office, which is the background to the issue. It is not surprising that the Home Affairs Committee recommended that existing border control agencies should be combined into a single frontier force. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little bit more about his thinking on that recommendation, made so long ago.

I have one or two queries about the exchange of information. The agencies will now be under a duty to share information with each other. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the proposition that there needs to be a safeguard against fishing expeditions, which I have mentioned before—for example, one agency simply saying to another, pursuant to the duty under the clause, “Have you got anything we might be interested in? Let’s see what you’ve been doing.” I assume that a record will be made of all requests and that it will be a public document.

I wonder, although it is highly unlikely, whether the Minister has thought about whether someone who is the equivalent of the independent monitor in asylum cases might oversee the workings of the exchange of information scheme to see that all is correct.

All members of the Committee believe that it is important that agencies share information, which can be of the greatest importance to national security. Of course, the Minister will be the first to say that some information is not relevant. When the Revenue is involved there is a possibility of information that should not be passed on being passed to another body by a person who, rather zealously, takes their duties too seriously.

The breadth of the clause is again evidenced by the continued reference to the ability and duty to exchange information for “police purposes”. I again quote the section of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 that troubles me greatly because the final definition of “police purposes” after the obvious ones is

“such other purposes as may be specified”.

The vagueness of that definition leads me to wonder whether it would be possible for too much information to be switching around between the various bodies under the clause. It would have been so much better if the Government had listened to the Home Affairs Committee and to my party, as there would be only one body and the clause and the obligation to share information would be utterly redundant.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I disagreed with what the Home Affairs Committee said about a single agency four years ago and I disagree with the Conservative party’s position now. However, the data sharing facilities and duties must be right and must work. I fully accept that, but a joint agency would lose too much.

Let us go back to Dover. Where would the authority of a single border force start and end? What would be the role of special branch, who have a special role—as their name implies—above and beyond simply the county force? Sometimes it is Kent’s own special branch; sometimes it works with other counties, and there will always be scope and the need for joint operations. We are trying to ensure that each agency brings in and uses its specific area of expertise as much as it can. I cannot think of how a single border agency could be drawn up that would capture in fullness the expertise of the immigration service on immigration, the Customs and Revenue people on customs, the county police and the local Dover police and their local knowledge germane to the port, and other special branch forces and the serious crime squad. It must be the case that if the intra and inter-workings of each of those agencies were brought together in an appropriate fashion, which the clause seeks to do, the sum of all the expertise brought by each of those agencies would be far greater than an individual border force. I remain to be persuaded, but that is clearly my view at present.

I will not go down the road of suggesting what you, Sir Nicholas, bring back or do not bring back from France or other forays on the continent. That is absolutely none of my business. What the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) does in his own time, by going over to deprive the Revenue by buying his cigarettes in France, is entirely a matter for him, not me. I shall not go down those avenues at all, but if he is going again—

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I’ll bring you some back.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Yes; why not?

It must be the case that the expertise of all agencies is far greater than that of a single border agency. I freely accept the substantive point that if that is the case, all the assorted data sharing facilities should be put on a statutory footing, rather than the less than statutory, informal position that we have now. We would need to be clear about who is in the lead in any specific operation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that would avoid a series of assorted targeted searches as someone proceeds through a port. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover is right that there must be scope for joint targeting or operations, and that if someone is coming through and there is a reason for stopping them, that should happen, but only once, whether it is by special branch, Customs or whoever else is instigating the target.

In Dover and some other southern coastal ports, in line with what we were suggesting with earlier amendments, we have moved the border—not physically, as we are not doing offshore searches of anybody. However, just the other week, I was over in Calais looking at the juxtaposed controls—where they get these phrases from, I do not know—which is English, or bad English, for our Customs people doing what they do best over in Calais, long before freight or passengers reach the UK, working exceptionally well with all the assorted security and police officials from the French state, our consular people and the equivalent département officials from the Pas de Calais and the town of Calais. It is working very well, and has been in place since the demise of Sangatte. If the hon. Member for Woking has not already been, I would encourage him to go, with some of his colleagues, and see in person the lorry searching, the passenger side and the real operation, which means that less is desired and more can be targeted on ports such as Dover once passenger or freight traffic lands in this country. I would facilitate such a visit.

I return to the original point: it is my duty to say, if we do not have a single border force, how can we knit together each of the agencies more appropriately for data sharing and all the other facilities? That is what we seek to achieve with clause 31. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 32 - Information sharing: security purposes

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in clause 32, page 16, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert—

‘(1)A person specified in subsection (2) may disclose information obtained or held in the course of his functions to a person specified in subsection (2A) if he thinks that the information is likely to be of use for a purpose specified in—’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 36 to 41, 43, 45, 48 and 49.

Amendment No. 100, in clause 33, page 18, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2)Before issuing a code the Secretary of State shall—

(a)consult the Information Commissioner

(b)after that consultation, publish a draft code

(c)consider any representations made about the published draft, and lay a draft code before Parliament.’.

Amendment No. 101, in clause 33, page 18, leave out line 7 and insert—

‘(4)The code shall come into force in accordance with provision made by order of the Secretary of State; and an order—’.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Had the general election not intervened, the drafting of the Bill, given a little more time, could have been tidier. The purpose of our amendments in this group is to clarify and tidy the Bill’s structure. They will make the Bill’s relationship with other legislation that governs the security services more logical and sensible.

The original drafting of clause 32 allows for travel or freight information for security and intelligence purposes to be shared. The amendments give the border agencies a discretionary power to disclose travel and freight data to the security and intelligence agencies for specified purposes: national security, economic well-being and support in combating serious crime. The original provisions allowed the reciprocal sharing of data, but we can inform the Committee that those provisions are not necessary, because existing powers in the Security Service Act 1989 or the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which enable the security and intelligence agencies to disclose data to the border agencies for certain purposes, are sufficient. Therefore the two-way process does not need to be included in the clause, because the existing legislation—namely, those two Acts—allows for the transfer of data back the other way.

As a consequence of the amendments, the code of practice on data sharing no longer applies to the clause. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 remove references to clause 32 in clause 33, which relates to the code of practice.

Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 allow for information to be disclosed if it is likely to be of use for any of the purposes specified in section 1 of the 1989 Act or sections 1 and 3 of the 1994 Act. Those are the same purposes that I mentioned a moment ago. I hope you will agree, Sir Nicholas, that those are tidying amendments.

I shall now speak to the amendments that have been grouped with the Government amendments. I am sure that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) will want to make his own comments. It seems appropriate at this stage to put some of our thinking on the record. Amendment No. 100 would create a three-tier process for the code of practice for the one-way transfer of information.

The hon. Gentleman envisaged three tiers in that process: first, that there would be consultation with the Information Commissioner; secondly, that following consultation a draft code would be published; and thirdly, that the Government should consider any representations made about the published draft and lay a code before Parliament.

On each of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises, we can give him some comfort that steps have already been taken or will be taken, according to the Bill as drafted. We have already worked closely with the Information Commissioner on the production of the framework code of practice, which the hon. Gentleman may have had a chance to look at. On 13 October, we published an outline framework for a code of practice on data sharing, in accordance with clause 31 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, between the immigration service, the police service and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs under e-borders. I recommend that document—with its simple and snappy title—to the hon. Gentleman as a riveting read. It sets out the principles by which we are taking this process forward. I assure him that we have been working closely with the commissioner on its production.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the commissioner has responsibility for ensuring that the principles of the Data Protection Act are upheld, and we are mindful of those principles. The Home Office will continue to work with the commissioner’s office in the production of the subsequent documentation related to the clause.

The hon. Gentleman’s second point was that a draft code should be laid before it is finalised. I refer him to clause 33(2)(a), which states that a code

“shall not be issued unless a draft has been laid before Parliament.”

I think that that takes care of the hon. Gentleman’s point. People would, of course, be able to make representations on the draft.

With those assurances, we urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments, although I will expect him to make further points in the course of the debate. The Government amendments to the clause are simply tidying and clarifying amendments to ensure that the Bill, if it is to become an Act, will work properly and fit neatly into the existing legislation that governs the activities and work of our security and intelligence services.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

In the light of what the Minister has said—he has stolen my thunder slightly—at this stage I do not seek to press my amendment.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

As the Minister correctly anticipates, when I heard the words “tidying and clarifying”, that led me to raise a couple of points that I would like the Minister to tidy up and clarify. They are not complicated matters.

I believe that I am right in thinking that amendments Nos. 43 and 45 are consequential on amendments Nos. 40 and 41. However, if the people mentioned in those amendments are under no duty to share information, surely there can be no order specifying the information that they must share. It is therefore unclear to me why amendment No. 43 does not also delete subsection (3)(c), which states,

“which relates to such other matters in respect of travel or freight as the Secretary of State may specify by order.”

That subsection appears to be left hanging with the deletion of subsection (3)(b).

It is also worth asking what the effect of deleting subsection (4)(b) will be. Will the Minister respond to those two points?

Likewise, on Government amendments Nos. 48 and 49, and despite what the Minister said, I again presume that their purpose is to take information sharing for security purposes under clause 32 out of the code of practice. I am still unclear why that has been done. As nothing in the clause imposes a requirement to report on how the code of practice is used or could otherwise require the security services to disclose information, why are the amendments necessary?

Moving on, I have two small queries. First, the drafting in this subsection limits it to information provided by the Secretary of State

“in so far as he has functions under the Immigration Acts”,

a chief officer of police, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Would there be any other Government agencies to which it could apply or be extended, such as information held by housing departments, the Department of Health or the Department for Education and Skills? Why is it limited to those three and not a broader category of operations?

In clause 28 the Government amendment added all vehicles to these categories and yet that does not seem to have happened in this area. I wondered whether for the sake of tidiness or keeping everything in order vehicles should be considered as a potential addition to this group under subsection (3)(a).

Lastly, I happened to glance at the long title of the Bill. It may not be a matter for now but as freight happens to be mentioned specifically under the clause, I wondered whether orders relating to freight are within the long title of the Bill as it stands. [Interruption.] The Minister is saying from a sedentary position that they are, but it is always worth checking at this stage and getting the answer from the ministerial team.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Perhaps I may deal with the hon. Lady’s last point first. It came up this morning. It is important to reiterate that the movement of freight is relevant to our considerations. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear, there can be circumstances where freight movements involve people, but the movement of freight can also provide information about immigration issues or policing matters. That is why it is included. As he said, parliamentary counsel has satisfied us that it is within the scope of the Bill. I am happy to give her that assurance.

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s probing on the tidiness or otherwise of the clause as it is left. First, she asked why subsection (3)(c) is not deleted, given that (3)(b) is to be removed and the persons referred to in subsection (2)(d) to (f) have been deleted. It is not deleted and the clause is not untidy as a result because, as with clause 31, it is necessary to say what information can be passed from the border agencies to the security and intelligence services, where that does not fit in clause 32(3)(a). It is necessary to give further clarification on that point.

The hon. Lady also asked about the effect of leaving out subsection (4)(b). The subsection is unnecessary as this is no longer a two-way gateway. The Bill, as drafted, was about creating a two-way operation whereby information could pass in both directions. As amended, the Bill is a one-way street and the process in the other direction is now removed. The security and intelligence services have sufficient legislation to cover their operations—that is taken care of—so the provision is not needed.

The hon. Lady also asked whether the clause could be extended to other agencies, such as housing. We are considering whether it may usefully be extended to others in future but it is primarily concerned with the capture of data as it affects the cross-border movement of people. That is why it is so constructed. If there were a case to be made in the future, we would give thought to it, but at this stage it is right to limit the scope of the Bill and the clause as proposed.

I think I have covered most of the points raised by the hon. Lady. She asked about vehicles; the only relevant vehicles are those on ferries, which would be covered under passengers and freight, and vehicles coming through the channel tunnel. The Bill, especially the sections that relate to aircraft and vessels, does not mention trains. Trains passing through the channel tunnel are governed by separate legislation, and we shall lay out in an order flowing from that legislation similar provisions to those in the Bill in respect of other transport movements.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I raised the matter only because of the Minister’s own amendment No. 108 to clause 28, which applies to ships and aircraft, to

“leave out ‘and aircraft’ and insert ‘, aircraft and vehicles’.”

For clarification, keeping in line with clause 28, I thought if the proposal did include vehicles it might be helpful. I was just tidying up.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. I thought that it would be useful to explain more broadly why the proposal is so drafted. The order relating to channel tunnel traffic will come in due course. “Vehicles” are the classes of vehicles that I mentioned; I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to clarify what is meant by that. Vehicles coming through the channel tunnel will be dealt with in secondary legislation. For the purposes of the Bill, vehicles on ferries are covered under passengers and freight.

I hope with that clarification that I have answered the hon. Lady’s legitimate questions.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 16, line 39, transfer Clause 32 to after Clause 33.

I shall be very brief. The amendment is a tidying amendment in the truest sense of the word. It simply moves clause 32 so that it follows clause 33, as clause 33 will be applicable only to clause 31 as a consequence of Government amendments Nos. 48 and 49. If that is clear, I ask the Committee to accept amendment No. 34.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I simply congratulate the Minister on a good piece of tidying up of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I congratulate the Committee on dealing with the matter with considerable expedition.

Clause 33 - Information sharing: code of practice

Clause 34 - Disclosure to law enforcement agencies

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I beg to move amendment No. 130, in clause 34, page 18, line 18, leave out subsection (2).

Clause 34 gives chiefs of police the power to disclose information to

“any other foreign law enforcement agency.”

The amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is a probing amendment designed to find out what safeguards will be in place to ensure that information is not shared in a way that breaches UK obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. I seek assurances from the Minister as to how he can guarantee that information sharing will not put anyone under further fear of persecution. A number of people who are just passing through this country could be subject to this provision. In fact, people who are not currently subject to persecution may find themselves subject to persecution. The chance of their being persecuted by a foreign Government will massively increase as a result of information being passed on, and they could end up becoming refugees. I seek reassurance from the Minister as to how that can be avoided.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has introduced his amendment, which he describes as probing, in the way that he has. On paper at least, I was going to refer to it as an “untidying” amendment rather than a tidying amendment, given that, by removing the definition of a foreign law enforcement agency, it would do precisely what he seeks not to do. If we take the amendment at face value, police, without being defined, could pass on information to anybody they so choose. I am glad he does not seek to pursue the amendment.

I am a bit worried, too, by the notion that the hon. Gentleman thinks that people who are “just passing through”, to use his terms, should be allowed to “just pass through” regardless of their position in other jurisdictions or of crimes that they may or may not have committed. I am sure that he did not mean it like that, but that is the way in which he phrased his introductory remarks.

We could almost put a tape recorder here in place of Ministers to respond to any number of the Liberal Democrat amendments. I repeat that anything in the Bill, not least in clause 34 will be implemented—we can do a chorus—entirely in accordance with the UK’s obligations under the 1951 convention, not to mention the 1951 European convention on human rights. That is at the root of the Bill.

I do not blame the hon. Gentleman—he is only here for a temporary four-year term—but I am sure that he will learn that he cannot look at any piece of legislation in isolation. It sits within the terms of all other existing legislation, whether that be human rights legislation, conventions to which we are signatories, an assorted range of other treaties, the Data Protection Act or whatever else. This is not a little game in which one looks at the substance of a Bill on its own without understanding its legislative context.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I plan to be here for a good deal more than the next four years.

The Minister will be aware that the police in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are used to co-operating at great length and in great detail with different constabularies and with other law enforcement agencies on the mainland. Those islands have a special relationship with the UK. Surely it is not necessary, given that long-standing relationship and the close links among those police forces, to refer to those islands’ police forces in the Bill. Will he elaborate on that?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It is entirely necessary. Those police forces are established not only under different jurisdictions but under a different statutory base. Specifically in the context of clauses 27 and 28, it is germane, appropriate and necessary to mention them deliberately in the Bill. I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman’s point about our relationship and co-operation with those police forces.

I hope, not via a chorus or a tape recorder, that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington will take the assurances given about the 1951 conventions—European and United Nations—in the manner given and will withdraw his amendment.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

This time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I have one or two brief questions. I seek the Minister’s indulgence because, a moment ago, my mind wandered on to the next clause. I missed an earlier exchange, so if my question has already been asked, I hope that he will forgive me. Most of my best family holidays have been on the island of Alderney. I wonder whether, since Guernsey and Jersey have been mentioned, Alderney, Sark and Herm should be mentioned separately.

Although the chief officer of police may disclose information to other foreign law enforcement agencies, I should be interested to hear whether many foreign law enforcement agencies have legislation in place to permit them to exchange information with us, and whether they do so. Can the Minister explain why it was decided not to specify by order the relevant foreign law enforcement agencies, whether by name of agency or by country? Can he also say a little more about the reference in the clause not to police forces but to those with

“functions similar to ... functions of a police force.”

I take it, for example, that in America, we would be talking about the CIA, the FBI, the federal police and the state police. Are those all included? What about other countries?

In relation to the issue of police purposes, have any purposes been specified under section 21 of the 1999 Act? Can the Minister confirm that the sharing of information under the clause will also be limited to sharing for police purposes as defined by that section? Could that limitation as to purpose be specified in the Bill on Report?

Those are my questions on the clause which, otherwise, I think is sensible.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

On the hon. Gentleman’s final question, we think that there is already sufficient explanation and definition of the information and the sharing thereof in the Bill without including it in this clause.

I am not told, but I suspect, that the formal titles “States of Jersey” and the “Island of Guernsey”, as used in the clause, cover Alderney, Sark and Herm. I am assured by a Government Whip that there is one policeman on Herm, so we may write to him to see whether he can share information with us, and under what terms he can do so. On a more serious note, I think that those areas are covered and captured by the reference to the “States of Jersey” and the “Island of Guernsey”—[Interruption.] I do not know the policeman’s name, but I am sure that we can find out if we need to know it. I shall write to hon. Members to confirm the general point.

Two other points were made about law enforcement agencies: first, whether we share with everybody or whether we can share specifically with one agency on behalf of the others; and secondly, the degree of reciprocity. I think that I am right in saying that thus far, other states are working towards such a joint sharing arrangement and, as and when we deal with other states, there is a mutuality that would almost demand reciprocity. However, I am not entirely sure—I cannot give chapter and verse—whether other states have reached the level of legislation that we have. However, there has been significant progress at the European Union level in working towards data sharing and to a common standard in terms of biometrics and other dimensions.

I hope that my answers to those valid questions—except for the question about the name of the policeman on Herm—have satisfied hon. Members.

Clause 35 - Searches: contracting out

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I beg to move amendment No. 120, in clause 35, page 19, line 1, leave out subsection (5).

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 121, in clause 35, page 19, line 12, leave out from ‘(1)’ to end of line 15.

No. 122, in clause 36, page 20, line 19, leave out subsection (3).

No. 125, in clause 36, page 20, line 27, leave out subsection (4).

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

The clause is serious in that it gives new powers to workers who are contracted out to other security forces. I have two questions for the Minister. First, do the Government intend to create an unregulated security force, as elements of the clause suggest? Secondly, why are we not limiting the powers to existing customs officers and police officers?

There are serious questions to be answered about the training of such unregulated security officers who might be given the job of security. What level of training will be given to people to whom the service has been contracted out? Will they, for instance, be given training in racial and cultural sensitivities when conducting searches? Under section 155 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, detainee custody officers are authorised individually. Clause 35 suggests that a whole class of people, rather than the individual, will now be authorised.

Will the Minister also clarify whether the training of people to whom the service is contracted out will include understanding the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice and the limitations on powers of search?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the powers of search, which are critical. I also serve on the Committee considering the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, which contains very similar powers of search in relation to school children. The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill refers to a

“coat, a jacket or a glove”,

which can be taken off, whereas the Violent Crime Reduction Bill refers to a

“coat, a jacket, gloves and a hat”.

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that to be an omission from this Bill?

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I am not quite sure how important the omission is, but perhaps the Minister will comment on that, too.

There is also the question of the definition of a coat. A lady might wear a jacket but not have anything on underneath, whereas I might wear a coat on top of my jacket.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I do not know what ladies the hon. Gentleman has been mixing with, but in my experience most ladies do wear something under their jackets.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. Ribaldry is not encouraged.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I understand that, Sir Nicholas. I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to subsection (7)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii), which state that part of the search is to prevent the individual from carrying something that might cause himself or another physical harm, or that might assist him to escape. That is why a hat is so important.

I served on the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Bill back in 1993, and the one amendment that Conservative Ministers allowed us Back Benchers to make was to add the word “hat” in relation to searches. More importantly, however, restricting the list in subsection (8)(a) means that it might not be possible to discover the things that an individual carries that could cause them physical harm or assist them out of detention. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might want to take that into consideration, because it appears to be a lacuna.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Clearly, from the information that the hon. Lady has given, I am sure that the Minister will want to take on board the issues raised about a hat.

My last comment relates to the ability to detain others for up to three hours. It strikes me that three hours is an awfully long time for an unregulated person, who does not have the experience of a police officer or a customs official, to be able to detain somebody in that capacity.

Gwyn Prosser (Labour, Dover)

I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with many of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I have some general concerns about the hiving out of duties carried out by public servants to private agencies, although I am sure that you, Sir Nicholas, will not allow me to go too far along that track.

However, the problem is not just the generality of hiving out public duties, but the particular nature of the duties. Anyone who has witnessed the searching in, for example, my home port of Dover, and who has seen some of the tragic scenes of the back of a lorry opening and families of asylum seekers with young children coming down the ladder, will know that they are traumatic incidents, which must be dealt with sensitively. The idea is to hire private agency staff, although the Bill says that they must be properly trained and provide a proper service. What does the description “fit and proper” for the purpose and “suitably trained” mean? It describes a fully trained immigration officer or a fully trained customs officer. It is not by accident that they have to go through rigorous tests.

We do not have to look into a crystal ball to see what might happen, because we already have the situation in Calais, where private agency workers, who happen to be French nationals working for a French agency on very low pay that is close to the minimum wage, are required to help at berthside inspections, supporting the immigration officers. They have only a limited power, not the extended powers in the Bill and cannot carry out searches of people. The Bill mentioned inspecting the inside of a person’s mouth. That involves detaining someone, possibly against their will, and could give rise to all sorts of concerns. We only have to think about the debate that took place on whether community support officers should be given powers to detain and arrest to know that. We have gone through the process of providing fully trained customs officers and immigration officers, and that should be the end of that.

Last week I had a meeting with immigration officers who were members of the Public and Commercial Services Union. There are hundreds of such people in Dover, and I am a member of the PCS parliamentary group. They explained that one of the dangers of hiring agency staff is not just the sensitivity of health and safety matters, which we have discussed, but the greater propensity—I am not being xenophobic—for a foreign national, who is hired on a short-term contract, or even for the day, and given the new powers, to be open to corruption and bribery. Those were the words of the immigration officers.

Even if we do not go as far as that, agency staff certainly will not have the culture that is built into our customs officers and immigration officers—officers of the Crown—who look on their job as a point of duty. They are not just there to earn a crust of bread. That is very important, of course, but they are paid a professional wage to do a professional job and this aspect of the Bill dilutes that and could have serious ramifications.

I shall not do anything dramatic today, but I hope that the Minister will take those points on board in the serious way in which they have been delivered. If he cannot give me real assurances that my concerns will not become reality, I and other colleagues will have to consider which way to approach the measure on Report.

Lee Scott (Conservative, Ilford North)

I want to ask the Minister how many extra fully trained officers will be put in place to enforce the searches. Will they be across all ports or just selected ports of entry to the country?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I want to expand slightly on my intervention on the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, because I am concerned about some of the provisions, and particularly those left standing in subsection (7).

There is a problem in our establishments with the number of self-harming incidents and suicides. I want to establish what protections will be put in place. I want to save the rest of my arguments for the clause stand part debate, but as I mentioned that point in an intervention and you ruled it in order, Sir Nicholas, I just wanted to reinforce the fact that I seek a statement on the issue from the Minister, so that I may, with your permission and that of the rest of the Committee, return to the issue on clause stand part.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

The hon. Lady read the Chairman’s mind.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The amendments have prompted a useful debate and I hope to respond to most, if not all, of the points raised. There is common ground between us, in that we accept that the searching of inbound vehicles and vessels is a crucial component of our border controls. The Committee is probably united on that issue. The problem is that under current legislation the power is restricted to immigration officers; the provision is restrictive. That places enormous strain on immigration service resources in an area that we feel could equally be served by using suitably qualified persons. There is no reason why, with adequate training and scrutiny, a private contractor could not perform successfully the operation that we are discussing and allow hard-pressed immigration staff to devote their skills and expertise to areas where they can be more useful.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Perhaps the Minister could give us an indication of how much money the Government expect to save as a result of contracting the work out, rather than taking on extra members of staff in the existing service.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I do not have the exact figures to hand, but I stress that this is not a question of saving money. We are in the process of expanding quite significantly the immigration service front line at ports—not only at seaports, such as the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover assiduously represents, but across the piece. This measure is purely about flexibility. It is not about someone doing the job more cheaply so that we can save money. The point is that we want trained, qualified, skilled immigration service staff to do the jobs in which they can add most value and use their skills most effectively.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Surely the Minister would agree that the issue is not money. The best way to guarantee that we have people doing the best job possible is to have members of the immigration service or customs officers doing the job. If money is not the issue, why not take on extra members of staff who will be guaranteed to have gone through the rigorous training that the existing members of staff have been through?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

There are several reasons why we would want to have the flexibility to enable full-time, trained immigration service staff to be devoted to other responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the juxtaposed controls that we operate in France. It might not always be practical or the best use of resources to devote our available personnel to front-end responsibilities. It is right to take the view that if staff can be more effectively deployed elsewhere they should be, and this clause enables us to do that.

In introducing amendment No. 120, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington made a point of asking the Government why it was our intention to create an unregulated security force. I strongly object to that, and entirely refute the suggestion. If he looks at the Bill, particularly clause 36, he will see that it lays out a pretty stringent regime whereby the Secretary of State can revoke the powers. There are also monitoring requirements to be put in place by the clause. Therefore we would reject the suggestion. The effect of the amendment would be to require the functions to be carried out by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff or by police constables. That would not be a sensible use of resources at the border. Those functions could more legitimately be carried out by others.

There was some debate on cultural issues, and whether they would be covered in training. I can give an assurance that the Home Office will ensure that cultural issues are fully addressed as part of the training. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is not applicable to this function, as subjects are not regarded as criminal—in the way that anybody arriving at an immigration port of entry and then subject to a search is not regarded as a criminal—and are not under arrest. Individuals being detained are detained under administrative procedures.

We then got on to the entertaining topic of personal dress, and what would happen if an immigration officer apprehended a young woman who was wearing a coat but nothing underneath. My first reaction was that he would not be able to believe his luck. Seriously, however, I take the point that hats are potentially an issue that should be considered, although at this stage we are not talking about a search that has to be comprehensive in every respect. Immigration officers have powers to conduct further searches if necessary. The purpose of searches is described here, and it is related to the other points about training. They are brief and non-intrusive searches to establish basic facts about what the person is carrying and if there is anything that needs to be drawn to the attention of an immigration officer. He asked whether detention up to three hours was appropriate. Contractors will be regulated by close scrutiny from the immigration service itself, which will demand high standards. In addition a monitor will be appointed, as we will discuss under clause 36, to review the operation of the contractor and to investigate any failings. Three hours is the maximum and the clause refers to

“a period which is as short as is reasonably necessary”.

People would not need to be detained for that long.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover raised some important points. I know how assiduously he represents his constituents who work at the port of Dover. I pay tribute to the job his constituents do in operating the country’s busiest and most famous seaport. In no way does the clause undermine or detract from their important role. He is right to say that they have a sense of duty about their work. We would envisage that the clause will simply enable them to use their considerable skill, but in an area where it can be most effective.

Gwyn Prosser (Labour, Dover)

My hon. Friend has been most generous to me and the customs and immigration officers in Dover. But those same customs and immigration officers whose professionalism, efficiency and judgment have been lauded are the very people who were saying that this is a step too far and this is not the most effective way to guard our borders. To echo the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, the answer is to increase the number of customs and immigration officers rather than bring in this cheap, second-tier option.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

We are doing just that. We are increasing the force on the ground at ports throughout the country. I could provide my hon. Friend with the exact figures. A recruitment campaign is under way to increase the size of the trained immigration service work force at ports throughout the country. I take his point that these are the people who are saying that the clause is a concern. More generally, the immigration service staff, of whom he probably has more in his constituency than any other hon. Member, are some of the most undervalued of all public servants. Their work is at times not glamorous, and it is certainly difficult and challenging to deal with complex personal situations. Much of their work goes unrewarded and unrecognised. Nevertheless, they should have nothing to fear from this proposal.

My hon. Friend mentioned that people could be brought in on the day and that they could be substandard. The Bill, as drafted, makes it clear that they would have to be suitably trained and that steps would be taken to ensure that any operator used would offer the highest possible standards. The development will not lead to redundancies. As I said to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, it is not a question of giving this flexibility in order to withdraw or reduce the head count of trained immigration service staff. That is not the purpose of the clause. We are increasing immigration control and if an operation meant any staff being displaced from the front-line work of directly searching vehicles coming in, those staff would be redeployed to other parts of immigration control along the Kent coast. This is not a question of redundancies.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

The Minister said that I suggested the clause would put immigration officers out of a job; I did not mean that, and I understand the point about taking on extra members of staff. The point that I wanted to make was that, if we are to take on extra staff to provide the service in question, we should take the very best and best-trained people. The best way to do that is to ensure that they are people working in the existing services, whether those are the police, the immigration service or customs officers.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of standards being compromised. However, he needs to consider in its entirety the process that is undertaken at ports of entry. Some functions require less skill and experience than others. The whole premise of the clause is flexibility. It is about deploying the skills to which the hon. Gentleman referred at the points of the immigration process where they will be most useful. The clause enables people to be redeployed to where they are most useful.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendments would require that the search equipment was used by police officers, customs officials or immigration service staff. It can be quite high tech, but it might not be the best use of their time and abilities. The question whether giving them that work is sensible must be considered in the round. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind the operation of the juxtaposed controls and whether it is sensible that the agencies carrying out the work on the other side of the channel should always be those that his amendment stipulates.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover will know better than anyone that the immigration service currently employs private contractors in other contexts and that those serve helpful supporting functions that enable immigration service staff to carry out their primary role. The immigration service must make the best use of the skills available among its staff. Searching lorries is one relevant area, but there are others in which staff can perhaps use their skills more effectively. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points and I hope that I have given him some of the assurances that he wanted.

The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) asked how many extra officers would be needed and whether they would be in all ports or only in some. The exercise of the functions, if it happens at all, will be dictated by the frequency of arrivals at the port concerned. Among the Conservative party’s misinterpretations—particularly during the election campaign—was the creation of an assumption that a full-time border staff would be put in post at every port of entry in the country. If that is still the party’s policy, it would have to find vast resources to pay for it. The immigration service operates by targeting resources according to the risk associated with the routes operating through any port.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Minister is playing fast and loose. The manifesto that we stood on in the last election said that we would secure our borders. I helpfully gave my copy of the impact assessment to Hansard because I referred to it this morning, so I do not have the text before me, but the Minister is being disingenuous because it discussed the redeployment of staff that are otiose to requirements to other parts of the Department. That is not a cutting down of the civil service and officials. The Minister should make it clear that he is absorbing people and increasing manpower.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

We certainly are. The facts speak for themselves. The size of the immigration service work force is increasing, and we are taking steps to recruit further immigration officials. I was speaking about the commitment to 24-hour security at all ports—I think that that was the commitment given in the Opposition manifesto—and I would be very interested to see the costings for that proposal. [Interruption.]

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. We are debating the Bill, not the election.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The contractors will be used to fill gaps at small ports and other places where intelligence has highlighted a problem. That is our intention; we do not propose covering all ports.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Is the Minister saying that there will be distinctive port forces in certain small ports?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I give the example of Liverpool airport, which has seen enormous growth in its passenger traffic in the past few years. The immigration service complement at that airport has increased significantly. I understand that it now has 10 full-time immigration officers, who are supplemented by one or two chief immigration officers. Only a few years ago, the operation did not justify such a number. The service has to judge the volume of traffic coming via a particular port of entry, and the risk that that traffic poses to immigration and border control and more broadly to security issues.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Why has this approach been used instead of pursuing a co-operative approach with local police forces, which already have excellent intelligence and also have the power to search and detain?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

It is not being done in the teeth of opposition. Every port of entry now has a multi-agency security team that monitors activities across the port. That team includes the various border agencies, and it is our full intention that there should be even closer working between them.

I was saying that immigration service staff will be supported by contracted organisations if necessary and if the volume and the risk justify that deployment and investment. The difference between our position and that of the Opposition is the commitment to blanket 24-hour coverage of paid staff at all ports of entry. It was that differentiation that I sought to tease out.

The hon. Lady also asked for clarification on the welfare of people in detention, particularly those liable to inflict self-harm. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, the detention and search powers are limited. The Bill will allow the searchers physically to search those detected at the earliest opportunity and to remove objects that they might use to harm themselves, but we are not talking about extensive powers of search and detention. The concerns are legitimate, but they are not valid in this case.

The amendments have allowed us a useful debate. For the avoidance of doubt, it is about our ability to deploy the immigration service work force in a flexible manner, and to target them where they are most needed and where they can best uphold the integrity of our borders. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, who is a renowned expert on those matters within the House. I want, via him, to reassure his constituents that the provisions in no way weaken their role. Indeed, it will probably enhance it, in that the people that we are discussing will be able to spend their time doing more meaningful things.

I believe that the amendment would be restrictive, because it would ensure that trained people were performing functions for which they were over-qualified. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington would want that, so I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I listened carefully to the extensive comments made by the Minister, but I do not feel that I have had the reassurance that I sought. I do not intend to withdraw the amendment.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before I call the next amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, may I say that although I am a servant of the Committee, I have one real power, which is to decide when we break for dinner? I have been advised by the usual channels that they hope to get to clause 46 tonight. If that is the case, the debate must speed up considerably. I intend to suspend and adjourn the Committee at 7 pm for one and a half hours, so hon. Members would then return at half-past eight. Having had no lunch myself because of commitments in the House, I feel that I need a break at that time.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I beg to move amendment No. 123, in clause 35, page 19, line 28, leave out paragraph (c).

I will be very brief. I have touched on the issue of detention and powers to detain by the people to whom the services are contracted out. Previously, contractors only had powers to detain people who had already been arrested or detained by the police or customs officials. Clause 35(7)(c) seeks to give power to detain, but there is no provision for a disciplinary system to ensure the proper use of that power or to ensure public accountability. The amendment, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, would deny private contractors the power to detain.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I, too, will be brief. This ground was covered in our exchanges a moment ago. The amendment seeks to remove the power of detention by an unauthorised person. Vehicle searches are currently undertaken by immigration officers who have the power to detain any person seeking to enter the country in a clandestine fashion. The purpose of the legislation is to provide additional resources at optimal cost to allow for the redeployment of those immigration personnel. There is nothing sinister about it; it is simply about using resources where they are most effective. It is therefore essential that those undertaking the task be empowered to detain any persons they discover until such time as they are able to hand them over to the appropriate authority.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

The Minister mentions the word cost. Previously, he suggested that it was not an issue, but now he says that it is a factor.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

That is a debating point. We want to use the resources that are allocated to the immigration service to the best effect. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor his party will ever get near the levers of government, but if they did they, too, would be under a duty to the taxpayers of this country to use resources efficiently and effectively. This is about using our resources well. If authorised search officers did not have the power, they would be unable to do their jobs properly, and that would enable people who were discovered to ignore any instruction or to fail to comply with any direction given by the search officer. The staff need to have their position backed up by a modest amount of legislative force, without which their role would be extremely difficult. That is why the clause is drafted as it is. The amendment would weaken the Bill unacceptably, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Although I do not accept the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

First, I should like to ask the Minister whether the powers would be exercisable only in a port or also, for example, in a lay-by where a lorry had arrived several hours before, and was waiting. Secondly, I want the Minister, again, to reflect on the three hours and the search capabilities, and extending the search capabilities. We have firm evidence that the first few hours in detention of any sort are particularly critical to vulnerable and alarmed people. We have only to look at our Prison Service to see the prime attention that is given to prisoners serving their first night in custody. I urge the Minister to consider the issue and come back to it on Report, or at least to review it to ensure that he has satisfied himself that the powers are extensive enough.

I also query why these people—as authorised persons with powers to use reasonable force to search and to detain—should not be appointed individually, as is done in the case of detaining custody officers. At the moment, there is a blanket provision for anybody from Group 4 or Securicor, or whoever it is, to have the powers. Lastly, I use as a support the evidence that the National Audit Office has produced about our privatised prison establishments. It cannot be ignored. The NAO has raised concerns about the lack of experienced staff in private prisons, and therefore I want to know what assurances we will have that staff who have little or no prior experience will not be used in those situations. What sort of proviso will the Government put on those operations?

The National Audit Office has highlighted the fact that there is an extremely high turnover of staff. If the Minister does not want to give me a direct answer to those questions today, perhaps he will write to me and show that he has reflected on them, as they are of extreme concern and importance to members on both sides of the Committee.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The hon. Lady raises some legitimate concerns on which I will reflect further; I will also reflect on the points raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. I am satisfied that what is proposed is a legitimate power but I will consider it further.

The hon. Lady asked where the power would be used; we intend that it would be only within the confines of a port. It is envisaged that the powers would be useful in the operation of the juxtaposed controls—the controls over the channel where it may not be sensible or practical to deploy fully-fledged immigration service staff or other border controls at all times of the day. If hon. Members think that through, they will realise that it is sensible to have that flexibility.

On issues such as three hours, search capabilities and staff experience, we should put more information before the Committee in terms of how we envisage that working and what further information and assurances we can give. I will seek to do so after I have reflected on the issues raised by the hon. Lady, which are fair points. I urge the Committee to accept the clause.

Clause 36 - Section 35: supplemental

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I beg to move amendment No. 124, in clause 36, page 20, line 3, leave out ‘a crown servant’ and insert ‘an independent person’.

The reason for tabling this probing amendment is twofold: first, it is to get some idea from the Minister how private contractors who detain and escort people to and from where they have been staying are monitored and whether it has been successful and, secondly, what steps are being put in place to ensure the supervision of the new contracted staff.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, contracting out immigration support services is not new. There are already substantive processes in place to monitor and oversee, specifically at ground level through the contractual arrangements in place to secure the contract. At a broader level they are monitored by a Government body. There is no reason to depart from established practices, which are well respected and which we seek to emulate. The notion that an independent person would be better and, in some magical fashion, better disposed and efficient at such monitoring than a Crown service is insulting. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I beg to move amendment No. 126, in clause 36, page 20, line 36, at end insert—

‘()The Secretary of State shall draw up a Code of Practice setting out the powers and appropriate practices for persons authorised under section 35. The Code—

(a)shall be made by statutory instrument,

(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Very simply, the amendment would make those authorised under section 35 subject to a code of practice.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In three words: unnecessary, redundant and otiose. Subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) give us a monitor and give him the power to inspect from time to time the way in which the powers are exercised, and the ability to investigate and report to the Secretary of State. Far more will be achieved by that monitoring than by any code of practice. The amendment is otiose and should be withdrawn.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

At this time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 37 - Accommodation

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 127, in clause 37, page 21, line 23, at end insert—

‘()In section 99(4) (Provision of support by local authorities) after “section”, insert “4”.’.

In the spirit of the progress that we have made, I will introduce the amendment briefly. It is an important amendment relating to the so-called hard case support. Clause 37 is, in itself, reasonably welcome in that it allows local authorities to provide hard case support under section 4 to the Home Office through NASS in a way that they have previously not been able to do. The amendment would permit local authorities to incur expenditure in preparing proposals for entering into arrangements to provide support. I think that that is necessary.

We know that there is a problem with the so-called hard case support, in that it is unfortunate that people should be left in such a situation at all. We know from the Library briefing that the number of people successfully applying for hard case support has increased, mainly, although not entirely, due to large numbers of Iraqis finding that their asylum applications have not been successful but that it has not been possible to remove them. With large numbers in such a situation, how people survive is a problem. Hard case support provides for accommodation only, and it has not been clear—and still is not—how people survive in respect of food.

The understanding was that the accommodation should be full board, but I am led to believe that that is the case in only 10 per cent. of cases. Vouchers have to be used, meaning that we are returning to the voucher situation that we thought we had seen the back of when the Government dropped that policy. A number of issues are raised by the clause and the amendment, but in particular the need to ensure that local authorities can incur expenditure in providing for entering into arrangements to provide support. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment and I look forward to hearing his response.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

There is an issue about extending section 4 powers to local authorities, which is probably necessary given the number of people who are now supported through section 4. Before Report and Third Reading, I hope that the Minister might consider whether, in extending the powers to local authorities, he will also move away from the voucher-only support that we have now and that local authorities will presumably provide if the clause comes into force.

It used to be that people who were supported under section 4 were given cash, or some cash, but cash support has now been completely withdrawn. There is no question but that that causes problems. I recently saw someone who is being supported under section 4, whose circumstances indicate that she is likely to be on such support for some time before there is any possibility of returning her to her country of origin. She is being issued with luncheon vouchers, and so can buy food and drink, but it is virtually impossible for her to buy anything else with them. As with the previous voucher system, that situation generates a trade in which people sell their luncheon vouchers for a bit of cash to buy things that they cannot buy with the vouchers or to get on a bus to go somewhere.

There is a real issue here, which I hope the Minister will consider. I know that there is a claim that the Home Office has had legal advice that cash cannot be provided, but the citizens advice bureau has had legal advice to the opposite effect. In extending the power to local authorities, which is probably necessary because of the number of people concerned, I hope that before we get to Report stage, the Minister will reconsider the provision of cash rather than voucher-only support.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Of course I will consider my hon. Friend’s point. I do not know if we can address the matter in the Bill, as it is more about practicalities than any point of statutory substance or import, but I am happy to consider it further.

I shall not go down the road of debating section 4, and certainly not on the misinformed terms of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. Suffice it to say that we are talking about people whose every avenue has been entirely exhausted—people, including Iraqis, who have a voluntary return route. Hundreds have already returned, and hundreds are in the pool to do so. To suggest that they have no safe route back and are restricted to a twilight zone of section 4 is wrong. That is not the case at all. I shall not have that debate, however misinformed the hon. Gentleman is. I want to be nice, because the amendment—

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I just said that I shall not indulge in that debate, and I have not said anything else about the amendment, so I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene because that would elongate the debate that I just said we will not have.

We do not intend that the clause should do anything more than that which prevails under sections 95 and 98 of the 1999 Act, which allows a degree of reasonable expenditure for the preparation of proposals under what will be the new provision. That is entirely fair. In that spirit, if the amendment is withdrawn, I will happily consider it further to establish whether we need to clarify the issue of section 4 support, and the role of local authorities. There is a fair point under all the misinformed muddle of the other issue.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I do not know whether to resent what the Minister says or be grateful—whether to laugh or cry. In the spirit of what he said about the amendment, I shall withdraw it. Clearly, it is not for any one member of the Committee to decide what we can debate; that is your remit, Sir Nicholas. I hope that in the clause stand part debate, the Minister will go out of his way—he may find that he is not really going out of his way—to clarify, briefly, what he believes to be the misunderstandings in this area. I wait to hear what he comes up with.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

With respect, Sir Nicholas, I shall not wait for the stand part debate, but will tell the hon. Gentleman now. The notion that section 4 cases concern those whom it is not possible to return, to use the hon. Gentleman’s phrase, is factually inaccurate in most cases under section 4—that is, those Iraqis from north Iraq. That is not the case. It is not a matter of debate but a matter of fact.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I accept that intervention, if that is what I am being asked to do, but shall return to the issue briefly in the clause stand part debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I beg to move amendment No. 105, in clause 37, page 21, line 44, at end insert—

‘(6)Section 9 (Failed Asylum seekers: withdrawal of support) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c.19) shall cease to have effect.’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this we may discuss amendment No. 106, in schedule 3, page 30, line 24, at end add—

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19). Section (9)’.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

The amendment would repeal section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. I am concerned about the way in which the section operates.

Section 9 was introduced to withdraw support from asylum-seeking families with children who had reached the end of the process. They had reached the point at which their claim had been refused and appeals had been lost, but they were failing to leave the UK voluntarily. The section was clearly designed to put pressure on families to leave voluntarily. That was made absolutely clear in the short debate on section 9 at the time.

Section 9 is being implemented in three pilot areas. As I understand it, all National Asylum Support Service-supported families are being sent the first-stage letter under section 9 when their appeals process has been exhausted. The letter advises them that they will not continue to be supported by NASS and that they should make arrangements to leave the UK. That is as far as it goes for most families, however. It is only for families in the pilot areas where the second and subsequent stages of the process are pursued. Between 100 and 150 families have been taken through the pilot process so far.

Some of us were concerned when section 9 was debated that it would not have the effects that the Government intended it to have. Yes, it would make families destitute, but it would not encourage them to leave voluntarily, which was supposedly the argument for its introduction. We have seen from what is happening so far that our fears were justified. As far as I am aware, no families have returned voluntarily to their country of origin as a result of being subject to the section 9 provisions. What has happened is that many of them have disappeared. They have moved from where they were living and are probably on somebody else’s floor somewhere. The Home Office will have lost touch with them; it will not even know where they are. That is exactly what one might expect from that type of provision.

The other area that is causing considerable concern is how the failure of families to return home voluntarily is having an impact on local authorities, and that concern extends to the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Social Services. There is a real conflict between the requirements of section 9 and the requirements of the Children Act 1989, under which a positive duty is placed on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need. Part of that duty is therefore to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, whereas section 9, when carried to its logical conclusion, means that the children will end up in care and the parents will end up with no support whatever from the local authority.

I understand that several local authorities in the Greater Manchester area, with the support of others from Yorkshire and London—the three pilot areas—have written to the Home Secretary asking for a review of the way in which the policy is operating before it is rolled out across the country. I hope that the Government will conduct such a review, and that they will make public the results of it and their evaluation of the way in which the pilots are operating. It strikes me that the policy is developing in a way that is doing no one any good whatever. It is certainly doing the families no good, and it is not achieving the voluntary returns that the Home Office wanted it to achieve.

I appreciate that the alternatives are probably quite unpleasant in some ways. If someone is refusing point blank to leave voluntarily and the Home Office does not operate section 9, that almost certainly means that their return must be enforced. No one likes the business of people knocking on a family’s door early in the morning and taking them into detention. However, I also appreciate that that must be done if it is absolutely necessary to remove someone who is simply refusing point blank to go when they have no right to remain in the country. Frankly, I would rather that that was done, unpleasant though it might be, than using destitution as a weapon to try to push people into returning.

I might think again if there is evidence that the policy is working and is actually leading to voluntary returns, but the evidence suggests that it is not. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he proposes to develop the use of section 9 and how he proposes to respond to what is coming back from the pilots.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I support what the hon. Gentleman says. What is the timetable for the planned roll-out of the policy beyond the pilot areas? Intrinsic to that, what assessment is being made of how it has worked so far? In particular, what outcome measures will be used generally to determine whether it has been a success? I ask that because, in addition to the points made by the hon. Gentleman, there is also concern that the implementation of section 9 leads to some families disappearing and going underground in order, presumably, to work illicitly—or at least to find money illicitly—which cannot be a happy outcome.

Without repeating what the hon. Gentleman said, I want to put on record the Liberal Democrats’ support for his proposal.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on his ingenuity in squeezing in a debate on section 9 in our debate on clause 37. It is certainly a topical matter. I thank him, too, for the way in which he introduced it. He is entirely right; these families have exhausted all rights of appeal and all legal status to be in this country. I have said time and time again as an Immigration Minister that I would far rather reach the point at which there was never an enforced return and that people returned voluntarily when they reached the end of the line.

We could argue the point about who is enforcing what on whom, but I suggest that by not co-operating on the voluntary return, and therefore maintaining support until such a return, the family put themselves in that position. If there is any fault, it is theirs. However, there are concerns about the interplay with the Children Act 1989 and about a range of other matters. That is why we have made it clear that there will be a full review and evaluation of the current position before any attempt is made to implement section 9 on a national basis.

For completeness, I think that in the pilot areas support has been withdrawn in 38 or 39 individual cases. My hon. Friend is entirely right; no one has returned yet on a voluntary basis, but in 15 cases the paperwork is being processed with a view to return. The thing is in the balance, and I happily give the Committee an undertaking that the review and assessment will take place before any roll-out—or implementation, for those who prefer English to strangled American managerialese.

I understand the concerns. My hon. Friend is right that colleagues in the north-west have written to me to explore the matter further. As for the evaluations starting in the next couple of weeks, some cases at least had to go through the relevant process before there could be any attempt to evaluate the efficacy or otherwise of the clause, but that will happen.

I have tried to ensure, too, that not only the Home Office and NASS, but also the Department for Education and Skills—given the concerns about the 1989 Act—will be involved in the evaluation process. I shall make the results of the evaluation process, or at least the headline figures, as public as I can so that there will be time for debate before we move on to national implementation of section 9.

I can say without pre-empting the outcome of the valuation at all—not being interested in courting controversy for the sake of it—that if section 9 works and achieves what we want post-evaluation we may well go in that direction. I am not interested in what is apparently a hard-edged, nasty bogeyman measure that does not achieve what we want. I shall view the evaluation in that context. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in obtaining a debate on that, and gently ask him to withdraw the amendment and await the outcome of the evaluation.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I thank the Minister for his point about ingenuity. However, my amendment was clearly in order or you would not have selected it, Sir Nicholas, and I think he is pushing the point a little far.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, I never suggested that it was out of order. I think that he should take the compliment and move on.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

Very well. I thank the Minister for what he said about evaluation. It is important that before such a measure is pushed out the pilot process is properly evaluated. That should be as public as possible, and I also thank him for what he said about that.

I do not want to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that we will return to the matter when the results of the evaluation of the pilots are available. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I have three questions for the Minister. First, does he intend that under clause 37 local authorities should provide full board, or does he intend them to provide vouchers for food, with the problems that we heard about earlier in finding money for transport for signing on or other purposes, or for essentials such as sanitary provisions? Or is it intended that there should be a choice? Do the Government have a view?

6.15 pm Secondly, on the question of whether the people subject to section 4 were unable to return, if I have the wrong perception about the generality of cases or individual cases, I am not the only one. The Library briefing talks about “destitute failed asylum seekers who are prevented from returning home are in some cases eligible for accommodation under section 4”. Indeed, the Refugee Council, which the Minister might arguably expect to get it wrong, believes that this refers to “asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected but who are unable to return to their country of origin.” Clearly some could, but do not. If one looks at the countries of origin of successful applicants, such as Eritrea, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia, there will be cases where people are not able to return and yet they face these difficulties. Thirdly, what will happen in relation to hard case support for people from Zimbabwe? In a recent case, the tribunal argued that they should not and could not be returned home. They will therefore be in the position that we are talking about where the clause impacts. Although the Minister felt that his change of Column Number: 239 policy and the subsequent appeal against that drove a coach and horses through asylum control, we are nevertheless dealing with people who are in this position. Does he imagine the clause will apply to that group of people? I should be grateful if he could answer those three questions. Mr. McNulty: With the best will in the world, I shall not, because the clause relates to the powers enabling local authorities to provide section 4 accommodation. Try as I may, I cannot see how any of those three questions are germane to the clause. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to put motivations in my head or words in my mouth about what value I put on documents from the Refugee Council. I know and respect that organisation and I thank him not to cast aspersions on my behalf about what my view is of the quality of its briefing. The hon. Gentleman asks what clause 37 is about. It is about affording powers to local authorities, not available up to now in terms of section 4 accommodation. That is all that it is about, and not the other matters—certainly not Zimbabwe—and everything else that he is asking me to discuss under the clause. I shall resist that. Question put and agreed to. Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 38 Integration loans Andy Burnham: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in clause 38, page 22, leave out from beginning of line 2 to second ‘for’ in line 3 and insert— ‘(1)Section 13 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19) (integration loan for refugees) shall be amended as follows. (2)In subsection (1) for “to refugees.” substitute “— (a)to refugees, and (b)to such other classes of person, or to persons other than refugees in such circumstances, as the regulations may prescribe.” (3)In subsection (2)(b)’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 62. Andy Burnham: The amendment will enable the Government to extend eligibility for integration loans to other categories of migrants. As such, I hope that it would be broadly welcomed by the Committee. As currently defined, eligibility for an integration loan extends only to those who have been granted full refugee status. We believe that the legislation should be sufficiently flexible to allow for the inclusion of further categories in future. For example, those granted humanitarian protection under article 3 of the European convention are subject to many of the same policies as those granted refugee status. We believe that there may be a strong case for affording that group of people the same treatment in this regard too. Column Number: 240 As currently drafted, the legislation would not enable us to provide an integration loan to some beneficiaries of the gateway protection programme. It is a resettlement programme whereby refugees have so far been resettled in parts of Bolton and Sheffield. We are talking here about those who have gone through the most traumatic and difficult experiences. We certainly want them to be able to begin their new lives in this country with the most support we could give them. That is why the Bill seeks to extend our flexibility to provide that support more widely to people under that programme. People under the gateway programme are instead given indefinite leave to remain outside the immigration rules. We are suggesting in the amendments that there is considerable merit in ensuring consistency of treatment. Such categories, as is often the case with immigration law, are defined by policy rather than legislation, and are therefore not apt for inclusion in primary legislation. That is why the two categories that I have just mentioned are not mentioned specifically in the amendment before us. We are seeking to make provision to extend eligibility to an integration loan by order, parliamentary approval for which will be by affirmative resolution. I hope that members of the Committee will feel that the amendments are to be welcomed. They extend support to people who are trying to create a new life in this country, and who need our support and our warmth at a time when they are most isolated. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 62, in clause 38, page 22, line 5, at end insert— ‘(4)In subsection (3)(a)(iii) after “as a refugee” insert “or since some other event)”. (5)In subsection (3)(h) for “refugee” substitute “person”. (6)The heading to the section becomes “Integration loans for refugees and others”.’.—[Andy Burnham.] Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Dr. Harris: This is a small point, but it relates to the substantive matter of clause 38, which is to change the term “indefinite leave to remain” to “granted him leave to enter or remain”, for some of the reasons that the Minister has already explained. It relates to the Government’s decision to provide for refugees, who are to be given in the first instance only five years’ leave and then a review. Does the Minister foresee any opportunity for the House of Commons to debate that policy change on a substantive motion? Clearly it is not appropriate to vote on it on a clause stand part debate, but it is a significant alteration to previous Government policy and does not, as I understand it, require primary legislation per se. However, it is important because it affects how long people feel able to be settled here, whether they can be settled here, or whether there is a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Moving from the indefinite to the specific, in this and other Column Number: 241 areas, has implications. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether he foresees an opportunity for us to debate and vote on that at another time, if not now. Edward Miliband (Doncaster, North) (Lab): Given the Committee’s wish to get on, could the Minister, following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, take the opportunity to say something about the definition of refugee status that is implicit in the clause? In particular, can he comment on the notion that if conditions in the country of origin improve significantly, it is reasonable to expect people to return? The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that “the change which has taken place in the country must be fundamental—not a mere transitory change in the facts surrounding the individual refugee’s fear.” Can the Minister reassure refugees and their representatives that he agrees with that definition, and that countries’ circumstances must be fundamental? Furthermore, can he reassure us that the power to declare that circumstances have changed will be used only in exceptional cases, such as where there has been a temporary upheaval that has caused a mass movement of individuals? That must be an exceptional power, and it must not be envisaged that it will be used generally. I witnessed a debate to which the Minister responded and in which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow spoke on 10 October. The Minister said: “I anticipate that declarations that country conditions have changed will be used sparingly.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 134.] I should be grateful if he would take this opportunity briefly to expand on that. Andy Burnham: Some valid points have been made, and I seek to respond to them all. First, let me pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. There was an opportunity to discuss these matters during a debate in the House called by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, which was attended by one of his Front-Bench colleagues. It was a very good debate, and extremely well attended for an Adjournment debate. The matter at issue was part of the Government’s five-year strategy announced earlier this year. It was also part of my party’s election manifesto, so there has already been a significant opportunity to consider the change. The clause amends the definition of a refugee for the purpose of providing access to an integration loan, so that it refers to a person whom the Secretary of State has recognised as a refugee, and who has been given leave, rather than indefinite leave, to enter or remain in the UK. Thus the clause brings the provision of integration loans into line with the new policy of granting refugees five years’ limited leave to remain in the first instance. In response to some of the points that have been made, it is important to say that this provision is entirely in keeping with the principles of the 1951 Column Number: 242 refugee convention. I would refer the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon to that document, because it enshrines the principle that leave does not have to be indefinite or permanent; people are afforded protection by a country for as long as they need that protection. This change to five years’ limited leave is entirely in keeping with the principles of the convention, and it brings our policy into line with that operated by many other European countries. Dr. Harris: I fully accept that, and I want to ask whether the Minister thinks that it will represent a substantial change in practice. After five years, will not many asylum seekers have developed roots in this country, making their removal, even if their refugee status is taken away, difficult on human rights grounds? Is it likely that people will go back in such circumstances, or is he merely making the point that we need go no further, as he rightly says, than fulfilling our obligations under the 1951 convention?

Secondly, on the question of whether the people subject to section 4 were unable to return, if I have the wrong perception about the generality of cases or individual cases, I am not the only one. The Library briefing talks about

“destitute failed asylum seekers who are prevented from returning home are in some cases eligible for accommodation under section 4”.

Indeed, the Refugee Council, which the Minister might arguably expect to get it wrong, believes that this refers to

“asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected but who are unable to return to their country of origin.”

Clearly some could, but do not. If one looks at the countries of origin of successful applicants, such as Eritrea, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia, there will be cases where people are not able to return and yet they face these difficulties.

Thirdly, what will happen in relation to hard case support for people from Zimbabwe? In a recent case, the tribunal argued that they should not and could not be returned home. They will therefore be in the position that we are talking about where the clause impacts. Although the Minister felt that his change of policy and the subsequent appeal against that drove a coach and horses through asylum control, we are nevertheless dealing with people who are in this position. Does he imagine the clause will apply to that group of people? I should be grateful if he could answer those three questions.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

With the best will in the world, I shall not, because the clause relates to the powers enabling local authorities to provide section 4 accommodation. Try as I may, I cannot see how any of those three questions are germane to the clause. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to put motivations in my head or words in my mouth about what value I put on documents from the Refugee Council. I know and respect that organisation and I thank him not to cast aspersions on my behalf about what my view is of the quality of its briefing.

The hon. Gentleman asks what clause 37 is about. It is about affording powers to local authorities, not available up to now in terms of section 4 accommodation. That is all that it is about, and not the other matters—certainly not Zimbabwe—and everything else that he is asking me to discuss under the clause. I shall resist that.

Clause 38 - Integration loans

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I beg to move amendment No. 61, in clause 38, page 22, leave out from beginning of line 2 to second ‘for’ in line 3 and insert—

‘(1)Section 13 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19) (integration loan for refugees) shall be amended as follows.

(2)In subsection (1) for “to refugees.” substitute “—

(a)to refugees, and

(b)to such other classes of person, or to persons other than refugees in such circumstances, as the regulations may prescribe.”

(3)In subsection (2)(b)’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 62.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.