Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
FOREIGN AND
COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
12 JANUARY 2006
Q100 Mr Williams: Then the other
technical problem is the reading mechanism. A very senior congressman
was complaining the other day that even on internal US flights
they just do not have the technical capability to read accurately
and quickly to deal with the flood of people. Look at how dependent
the Americans are on flying, not just externally. Are we anywhere
near developing the computer end, the reading end? It is not just
a matter of reading, it is a matter then of the comparison. How
far are we on that?
Mr Sizeland: We are working with
the Americans. We actually have a reader, which has been developed
by our business partner for our passport, which is being tested
in the American facilities. We are pretty confident that if the
particular reader itself is not selected, something that will
be compatible with that will be selected. We have also put in
something called basic access control on the chip to prevent skimming
and, again, provide a more secure environment for storing all
the data. So we are pretty well advanced. A lot of this is still
in the pilot phase; for example, they are testing the readers
at one airport in the States at the moment. We are obviously doing
our own testing here with UK Passport Service and others, but
what struck me over the last two years is the way that business
has risen to the challenge presented by this, essentially an international
and government driven programme. We shall see, when it is fully
deployed.
Q101 Mr Williams: I know there has
been some considerable frustration when quite senior and publicly
known congressmen have not been allowed to board aircraft. If
it happens to them, one worries about what happens to people like
me when we turn up at American immigration desks. How confident
are you that your timetable is achievable at a technical level,
rather than just being an aspiration? Is the technology progress
matching up to your aspirations at this stage, and if not, where
are the shortcomings?
Mr Sizeland: You are absolutely
right. In terms of the actual product and having something which
can be read, that is going ahead fine. The issue is where the
readers are going to be, whether the staff, in whichever port
it is, whether in Australia, the US or here, are trained to use
them and a capacity issue which we need to work through. The bigger
challenge for us comes when we move beyond the current first generation
of passports to the finger scans, because you can [currently]
send a photo through the post with your application. When you
are looking at issues of enrolling finger scans and iris scans,
that is going to be a much bigger physical and technical challenge.
Q102 Mr Williams: That is right.
At this stage in fact we are aspiring to two characteristics basically,
but is it not a fact that two characteristics are nowhere near
adequate to be secure? I understand it would need into double
figures of characteristics to get security. Is that the case?
Mr Sizeland: It is very important
and certainly when we are working on this project—
Q103 Mr Williams: I am asking whether
that is the case or not.
Mr Sizeland: Yes; it is and this
is part of a risk management programme. When people are travelling
with biometric passports, there will still be the other risk management
techniques, the interviewing, the questioning, the looking at
other information in the passport, which will also help establish
that decision as to whether they are the person they say they
are and whether they should be allowed entry.
Q104 Mr Williams: Even the fingerprints.
As this stage in the state of technology for fingerprints, I understand
that really the biometric check will not cover the full fingerprint;
it will take a certain percentage of the characteristics and use
those to scan the database. You are nodding, which I think means
affirmation. If that is the case, that means that in fact there
is no security, there is no guarantee. So you could turn up with
a perfectly genuine fingerprint but because of the limited reading
capability, as well as perhaps the original scanning capability,
you are still likely to be . . . Does anyone else wants to answer
or deal with this? Information is what I am looking for.
Mr Stagg: I deal with our visa
operation which in some ways is rather ahead in terms of the practicalities
of taking finger scans and I am sure there are problems. I do
not want to be Panglossian, but the experience so far in East
Africa, where we have the main pilot, has been that it is possible
actually to have quite effective matches between the scans you
take over there and the scans you can compare them with over here.
So there is a genuine potential for matching and this is with
two finger scans, not 10, because 10 is clearly a more sophisticated
measurement of the fingers. So there is no doubt benefit in having
added testing, but it would be wrong to overstate the problems
with the current technology where we have had real matches, which
has really happened and helped us.
Q105 Mr Williams: There are two separate
problems: the problem of convenience for members of the public
who are actually travelling thinking they have an absolutely secure
identification document and then arriving at the other end and
finding they have not; then there is a second one which is now
the war-on-terror argument. At the moment people are being led
to believe that we are going to be able to have 100% analysis
at our borders, but the reality is that is far, far, far away
at this stage, is it not?
Mr Sizeland: We are looking at
incremental improvements and certainly we shall be learning from
UK Visas' experience on finger scans in developing our next generation.
What UK Visas are doing is enrolling the finger scans at one point
and checking it on arrival. Here, we are actually planning to
put that in the chip, actually in the document itself. We shall
have to see how that works through, but we shall be working with
all of those who have identity programmes to get as good a product
as we can.
Q106 Mr Williams: I do not want to
misrepresent you but your nodding led me to believe that you were
agreeing when I said that the number of characteristics would
be into double figures to get anywhere near a guarantee.
Mr Sizeland: The more characteristics
you have, the more certainty you will have, but even just having
two will give you a higher level of assurance than perhaps under
the older machine-readable ones.
Q107 Mr Williams: That is not my
point. Two is very different from double figures and since we
are talking of going into an ID system and apparently a universal
passport system, at least the EU and our colleagues in the US,
it is very important we know exactly how secure we are going to
be, even at the end of the process. I ask you a simple question
now. To the best of your knowledge how many biometric characteristics
would be required for you to be absolutely sure with whom you
were dealing? How many would you actually need?
Mr Sizeland: I should have to
send that detail to you when we have completed the study. As we
are rolling out this first generation, we are now doing the work
to evaluate what is going to be possible in terms of the shape
of the network and the nature of the information and I should
be very happy to keep you informed of those studies.[10]
Q108 Mr Williams: I welcome any information.
If anybody wants to add anything, I am only searching for information
not trying to catch anybody out.
Sir Michael Jay: Mr Sizeland's
suggestion that when we are little bit clearer about this ourselves
we write with a more considered response to your questions is
probably the right way forward. These are clearly very, very important
questions indeed.
Q109 Mr Williams: That is fine. Let
me have a note. The Committee does on occasion receive further
extra information sometimes on a confidential basis, but the Committee
does not guarantee that confidentiality. I should prefer anything
you give me to be open, so we do not misunderstand each other.
Finally, on Kitty Ussher's case of a constituent, how commonplace
nowadays is the kidnapping by a father from, say, the Middle East
or from the Far East of children born in Britain to a British
mother?
Mr Sizeland: I can give you some
statistics. We have a total of 447 cases of child abduction on
file; 138 of those are active and we get about 35 new cases each
quarter.[11]
The top five destinations for abducted children are Pakistan,
India, the USA intriguingly, Bangladesh and Spain. During 2005
we were involved with 22 cases where children were returned to
the UK.
Q110 Mr Williams: From where were they?
Were they from America or where were they from?
Mr Sizeland: From all of those
countries I have mentioned and some more. Although they are not
members of the Hague Convention, we are working with countries,
particularly in the Middle East, on arrangements which will be
akin to the Hague Convention so that we can strengthen the judicial
procedures for the return of children.
Q111 Mr Williams: The reality is
that in some of these countries there is virtually no chance of
a mother winning a case against a father.
Mr Sizeland: Very difficult.
Q112 Mr Williams: I had a case going
back a long time, as you will gather from the age to which I shall
refer in a moment. A very young child was taken from my constituency
by the father. The next time the mother saw the child he was 17
years' old. Although she had all the court backup she could want
from this country, that had absolutely no standing at all. I am
not asking anyone to comment, but at that stage I was less than
pleased with the degree of support. I seem to remember this involved
Saudi Arabia. I was less than pleased with the response of the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office who seemed just to shrug their
shoulders and go through the motions, but recognised that in reality
they just were not going to get anywhere. Is it still much the
same? From the numbers you talk about, it sounds as though it
is.
Mr Sizeland: We now have a specialist
child abduction unit. We have had one for three or four years
now and in certain countries, such as the ones I mentioned, it
is assuming a higher profile as a consular service.
Q113 Mr Williams: You referred to
30-something cases being returned.
Mr Sizeland: 22 cases in 2005
where children have been returned to the UK. There will have been
other returns of which we are not aware, but these were cases
where we were working with families.
Q114 Mr Williams: Out of a case load
of how many?
Mr Sizeland: Of active cases,
138. On average we get 35. I could send a note, if that would
be helpful.[12]
Mr Williams: Yes, please. I would welcome
this information, including information relating to countries.
It is important we should know so we can give advice also to our
constituents on the basis of the information.
The Committee suspended from 5.04pm to 5.20pm
for a division in the House
Q115 Mr Bacon: May I just say to start
with, because it has just been placed on our desks, that this
is brilliant, absolutely superb. Please pass on our compliments
to those whose idea it was. It is exactly the sort of thing which
would give you the impression that the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office is up to the minute, on the ball and well into the 21st
century. Many congratulations. I have had a little look through
it and it is superb.
Sir Michael Jay: May I just read
its title into the record? It is The Rough Guide to Safer Travel.
Q116 Mr Bacon: I am sorry; I was
referring to The Rough Guide to Safer Travel, the Know
Before You Go campaign. We are of course familiar with Rough
Guides from commercial publishers and this is really first
class. I want to ask you about the Hague Convention. I have a
constituency case involving the Hague Convention, a so-called
kidnapping, where it is the other way round. The mother was alleged
to have done the kidnapping, but these are two British nationals,
both British passport holders, British citizens, British born,
who happen to live in Spain and have been habitually resident
in Spain. The mother fled from what could be termed a catalogue
of abuse and violence with her children; returned to England for
a holiday but just did not go back in essence. Even though both
are British nationals and both are British citizens, the courts,
deeming that they are both habitually resident in Spain, are likely
to find, I am told, and I have spoken to barristers about this,
that she will have to go back to Spain. I am told, in talking
to barristers, that however extreme the circumstances, mounting
a section 13 defence under the Hague Convention is nearly impossible
and, even in cases where women have had broken jaws, the courts
in this country have more respect for the judicial process in
the other country than they do for the human rights of the individual.
My question is this: especially in the light of Sir Christopher
Meyer, who was mentioned earlier, and his wife Lady Meyer, despite
the intervention of the Prime Minister, the Minister of State
for Europe and various very senior people in the US administration,
up to and including the White House, we were unable to get an
iota of movement from anybody in Germany in relation to that case.
What assessment has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office done of
the worth of the Hague Convention in terms of benefiting British
citizens? You mentioned 22 cases which have been successful. Net,
net, net is it worth it?
Mr Sizeland: I would say yes.
We need an international framework. Germany is a very good example
of what we are trying to do, where there are problems with individual
countries. People wonder why there is a problem with Germany:
it is the autonomy of the Länder and it is making
sure that we can get the advocates for our citizens in the right
courts in Germany. It is a framework which exists, we try to make
it work as well as we can and, intriguingly, in terms of extending
some of its provisions, for example in some Middle Eastern and
other countries, they are reluctant to sign up to the Hague Convention
but are willing, in some cases, as with the Pakistan protocol,
to have similar provisions which they can work with bilaterally.
It gives us an international framework, it is not perfect, but
we then pursue it vigorously as demand requires with individual
countries, getting advocates for what we want to do, to change
things within some of these countries. Germany is quite a good
example.
Q117 Mr Bacon: Specifically on Germany,
do you have any information on where it is the other way round,
where somebody in Germany is trying to get a child back from the
UK? How many times has that been sought and how many times successfully?
Mr Sizeland: I am not aware of
any, but I shall check on that.[13]
Q118 Mr Bacon: It surely must be the
case; Germany is a major European country.
Mr Sizeland: None has come across
my desk. I shall certainly check on that and send a note.
Mr Bacon: I should be most grateful.
Q119 Mr Mitchell: I shall just drop
a name first, because, as a Labour backbencher I do not get much
opportunity for name dropping. I was talking to the Prime Minister
last night. She said, for it was the Prime Minister of New Zealand,
the only one I get chance to talk to, that the British Government
are closing down a number of high commissions in former colonies.
I think the instances were Fiji and Kiribati; she gave me three.
I found in the Maldives that the high commission had been closed
down and it was all being handled from Sri Lanka. In cases like
that a high commission is clearly a cost, whereas the consular
business is revenue producing, not a profit centre but a revenue
producer. Are the two viewed as one when this happens? Certainly
when it comes to your mobile team which is going to go around
dealing with emergencies, whether it is General Amin or tsunamis,
if we have a high commission it would be somewhere for them to
base themselves when they go in if there is a problem and it is
going to be much easier to deal with that kind of case if we do
have high commissions. How far are the two regarded as separate
when the consideration is whether to close or not? What handicap
does closure of a high commission or an embassy impose in respect
of the consular duties as detailed here?
Sir Michael Jay: Mrs Clark is
right that we have closed three high commissions in the Pacific,
though not Fiji. Indeed what we have done is move to a hub and
spoke operation in which operations are centred on Fiji, which
has been strengthened in order to provide services to some of
the islands where we did not feel there was a sufficient British
interest to justify having a full-time post. In the case of the
Maldives, we have never had a high commission there as far as
I am aware.
10 Ev 29 Back
11
Ev 29 Back
12
Ev 29 Back
13
Ev 30 Back
| 
