Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill |
|
Mrs. Gillan: 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
Andy Burnham: 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. Mrs. Gillan: 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: 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
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.] The Chairman: 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: 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. Mr. Leech: 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. Mrs. Gillan: 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. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:— The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 2. [Division No.
AYES Bellingham, Mr. HenryBrown, Lyn Burnham, Andy Gerrard, Mr. Neil Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon Kawczynski, Daniel McCarthy-Fry, Sarah McNulty, Mr. Tony Malins, Mr. Humfrey Miliband, Edward Prosser, Gwyn Ryan, Joan Scott, Mr. Lee
NOES Harris, Dr. EvanLeech, Mr. John Question put and agreed to. Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 Proof of right of abode Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mrs. Gillan: 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: 2005. Mrs. Gillan: 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
Column Number: 190 and
Surely it should just be a United Kingdom passport. Is not the description of “a British citizen” and
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. Mr. Gerrard: 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. 12 noonThe Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Mr. Tony McNulty): 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. Mr. Gerrard: 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. Mr. McNulty: 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
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. Mrs. Gillan: 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? Mr. McNulty: 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. Gillan rose— Mr. McNulty: I shall happily give way to the hon. Lady if she can tell me what patriality is in all its glory. Mrs. Gillan: Perhaps matriality but not patriality. I want to take the Minister back— Mr. McNulty: I gave way for the hon. Lady to define patriality. Mrs. Gillan: 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? Mr. McNulty: 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
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. Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): 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. Mr. McNulty: 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. Question put and agreed to. Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 26 Provision of information to immigration officers Mr. Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 115, in clause 26, page 12, line 26, at end insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 117, in clause 27, page 13, line 38, leave out
No. 131, in clause 31, page 16, line 17, at end insert—
Column Number: 193 Mr. Leech: 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. The Chairman: 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. Mr. Leech: 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
subsection (7) would read:
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: 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. Column Number: 194 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. 12.15 pmMr. Leech: Why has it been decided that the requirement is necessary in clauses 27 and 28, but not in clause 26? Andy Burnham: 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:
what passenger, crew or service data may be obtained
is such—and this is the key phrase—
If I understand the effect of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment correctly, it would raise the bar slightly by deleting the phrase,
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. Column Number: 195 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. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 26 October 2005 |