Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill |
|
Mr. Leech: Given that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Malins: 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. Column Number: 196 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. Mr. McNulty: 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. Column Number: 197 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. 12.30 pmWe 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. Question put and agreed to. Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 198 Clause 27 Passenger and crew information: police powers Mr. Leech: 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? Mr. McNulty: 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. Mr. Leech: 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”? Mr. McNulty: 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
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. Mr. Leech: 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? Mr. McNulty: 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. Mr. Leech: With the Minister’s reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Malins: I shall attempt to be brief. I have a few specific questions first. The Minister will know that the partial regulatory impact assessment says:
Column Number: 200 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:
which is perfectly proper—
which is also perfectly proper—and
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? Mr. McNulty: 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. Column Number: 201 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. 12.45 pmMany 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. Question put and agreed to. Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 202 Clause 28 Freight information: police powers Mr. McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in clause 28, page 14, line 4, leave out ‘and aircraft’ and insert ‘, aircraft and vehicles’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 109 to 111. Mr. McNulty: 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. Mr. Bellingham: Can the Minister help me on that point? Mr. McNulty: I shall try my very best. Mr. Bellingham: 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. Mr. McNulty: 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. Column Number: 203 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. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: No. 109, in clause 28, page 14, line 7, leave out
and insert
No. 110, in clause 28, page 14, line 9, at end insert—
No. 111, in clause 28, page 14, line 26, leave out ‘or aircraft,’ and insert ‘, aircraft or vehicles,’.—[Mr. McNulty.] Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Mr. Leech: 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. Mr. McNulty: 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. Question put and agreed to. Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 204 Clause 29 Offence Mr. McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in clause 29, page 15, line 6, at end insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 64. Mr. McNulty: 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. Mr. Malins: 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. Mr. McNulty: I shall not go into that now but I am more than happy to look at it and get back to the hon. Gentleman. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 64, in clause 29, page 15, line 9, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. McNulty.] Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31 Duty to share information Mr. McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 31, page 15, line 39, after ‘State’, insert ‘and the Treasury jointly’. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 26 October 2005 |