Joan
Ryan: I think that I can give the hon.
Gentleman that assurance. If the situation is different, I shall come
back to him. We are talking about the police and other law enforcement
agencies so he can assume, as I would, that that is the case. We will
share the information with the police and other law enforcement
agencies when necessary for the prevention or investigation of crime.
All such exchanges will be in compliance with data protection
legislation.
We are in
consultation with the Information Commissioner about the impact of the
regulations. Biometrics are an established method of fixing a
person’s
identity and play a crucial role in preventing identity fraud. As the
Home Secretary made clear in his written statement of 23 May, fixing a
person’s identity to a unique record is critical to robust
immigration, asylum and criminal justice systems. By introducing finger
scanning to the visa application process, we will establish that link
and fix key personal details such as nationality. That will help to
create a more robust immigration control and further secure our
borders. We will also be able to improve the experience of genuine
travellers in whose identities we can now have confidence. I commend
the regulations to the Committee. 2.44
pm Patrick
Mercer: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. I am grateful to you for
providing the chairmanship today. I also thank the clerks and officers
who are looking after us and the police officer who is providing our
security, and who seldom gets a mention. It is nice to see the
Minister; I am not sure whether this is her first Statutory Instrument
Committee. It is also nice to see Nottinghamshire well
represented.
Now that the
normal preambles are over, I should say that the Minister and I last
faced each other during two extraordinarily lengthy sittings during
consideration of the Identity Cards Bill. The Minister then had the
privilege of working as a Whip. That is particularly relevant today,
because many of the differences between the Government and the
Opposition at the time were to do with how far we could take the
identification of individuals—those who were trying to enter our
country and those already
here. I agree with my
hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant); I welcome
much of what is covered by the regulations. Immigration is one of the
most problematic areas that we face. Getting it right is difficult, in
respect not just of upholding this nation’s proud record of
welcoming immigrants, but of making sure that those who come in are
properly registered and understood.
As we continue to face serious
and organised crime and international terrorism, the measures that the
Minister is talking about make a great deal of sense. If you do not
mind, Mr. Marshall—in fact, I am sure that you will be delighted
to hear it—we had better not go into the argument about whether
things should go further and whether the roll-out of biometrics will
lead us into what I consider to be the deeply flawed plan of identity
cards. However, the fact remains that whatever can be done to secure
our borders has to be a good thing.
I should like
the Minister to clarify one or two points, if she would be so kind. In
my earlier intervention, I asked about the Security Service. It seems
strange; “other law enforcement agencies”—I think
that that phrase is used—does not specify the Security Service.
It would be helpful if it were mentioned.
Secondly, will the Minister
expand on how much of the data gained by the methods that we have been
discussing will be shared with intelligence agencies from overseas?
That strikes me as important, although at the same time I see that
there are data protection elements to the issue, and I should like the
Minister to clarify those.
Those two points are relatively
simple, but I was in a darkened room with a cold towel around my head
trying to understand my next two—and, the Minister will be glad
to hear, final—points. The first relates to the revocation and
transitional provisions in paragraph 11. Will the Minister please try
to put them in English for me, expand on them and explain precisely
what they mean? They have completely defeated me and many brains better
than mine; there are many of
those. There
seems to be a contradiction in the provisions in paragraph 5, which
relates to section 141 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and that
has made life difficult for me in getting to grips with it. Paragraph 5
states: “An
applicant shall not be required to provide a record of his fingerprints
or a photograph of his face under regulation 3 if he is a person to
whom section 141 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999(a) applies,
during the relevant period within the meaning of that
section.” The relevant
period is defined under subsection (8), which
states: “The
‘relevant period’
begins— (a)
for A, on his failure to produce the passport or other
document; (b) for B,
on the decision to admit him
temporarily; (c) for
C, on the direction being
given; (d) for D, on
his arrest; (e) for E,
on the making of his claim for asylum;
and (f) for
F, at the same time as for the person whose dependant he
is.” To extrapolate, in
such circumstances, underparagraph 5,
“An applicant shall not
be required to provide a record for his fingerprints”
etc. on his
arrest. Perhaps
I am missing something incredibly important, or perhaps that is a
straightforward contradiction or even a slip of the pen, although I
cannot imagine that that would be the case. If the Minister is kind
enough to clarify the issue, I shall cease to waste her and the rest of
the Committee’s
time. 2.50
pm Mark
Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): Most hon. Members will welcome the
steps to allow the immigration and nationality directorate to improve
its record keeping in relation to those people who seek to enter the
country. I hope that once the measures come into force they will go
some way to allowing the Home Office to answer questions on illegal
immigrants in a slightly more constructive way than is all too often
the case now.
I have
concerns about the practicalities, however. I always get a feeling of
dread when I hear the Government talk about major IT and technical
projects of the kind outlined in the regulations. I would be grateful
if the Minister would give us some details about which companies have
been tasked with carrying out the installation of the equipment in the
consular posts referred to and how much the total cost is likely to
be. When the 2003
regulations were discussed in Committee, the Minister’s
predecessor, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart),
said: “I give a
commitment that if any extension is
sought,”— as it is
now—
“Members will be given a report on
what has happened so far.”—[Official Report, Seventh
Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 8 July 2003; c.
18.] As a relatively new Member,
I have not yet had the opportunity to read that report, so I would be
grateful if the detailed evaluation of the pilot schemes could be
forwarded to me. The
Minister will probably not be surprised that some of the main concerns
of my colleagues and I on the regulations are about data protection, to
which other hon. Members have referred. Will the Minister confirm that
information gathered in the pilot schemes has not been passed on to
agencies about which my colleagues have previously raised concerns,
such as government agencies in the very country that a person is
seeking to leave, or possibly even flee? Can she also assure me that
regulations relating to the destruction of data which are already in
force are in good order? Any information that the Minister could give
on the number of files already destroyed would be of considerable
interest. Having said
all that, I would be happy to support the regulations, with
reassurances from the Minister, as
appropriate.
2.50
pm
Joan
Ryan: I thank the hon. Member for Newark
(Patrick Mercer) for his nice welcome. We have served on many
Committees together and it is nice to be here in a speaking part. I
shall attempt to answer some of his questions. I think that I have
confirmed that security services would be encompassed in law
enforcement agencies; however, as a term that is not actually
specified, although I am sure that he can take comfort from the fact
that he has raised the issue and that it has been
clarified. The
hon. Gentleman asked about data share with intelligence agencies
overseas. We need to consider in what circumstances the Home Office
could transfer data to countries outside the European Union, bearing in
mind the Data Protection Act 1998. We do not routinely exchange
immigration data with countries inside or outside the European Union.
Any requests for access must be for one of the statutorily defined
purposes. For a foreign Government, that would have to do with national
security, or crime prevention or investigation and would take place
through Interpol. Neither Departments nor foreign Governments can fish
in the pool of data. They must present a request and the Home Office
must be satisfied that the data are required for the purpose stated. I
think that that was what the hon. Gentleman was referring to.
Perhaps the
hon. Gentleman will be reassured to learn that “Revocation and
transitional provisions” specifies previous
regulations—that is, amendments to the 2003 regulations, which
will become obsolete, as the current regulations cover all countries.
Old regulations have to be
revoked. On paragraph
5 and arrest, a person would still be obliged to give his or her
fingerprints, but that is under a different power—I am sorry if
the language was a little
involved.
Patrick
Mercer: I am not trying to be vexatious or difficult, but
if the problem is simply that I am unable
to understand the language, may I suggest that the language be
simplified? If that is the case, fine; I accept it. However, having
read the provisions over and over again, it appears to me that there
has been a slip of the pen. If so, will the Minister be kind
enough—I am not trying to trip her up—to make it clear to
me that that is the
case?
Joan
Ryan: I would be happy to have a look outside the
Committee at the language and what it has indicated to the hon.
Gentleman and to reassure him on that point in order to be
helpful. I
welcome the overall approach of the hon. Members for Cheadle (Mark
Hunter) and for Newark to the regulations: I am pleased to know that
there is cross-party support for them. The hon. Member for Cheadle
asked about costs. With regard to the costs of expansion for the global
roll-out beyond the successful trials that we have already undertaken,
I can tell him that the IND capital costs for 2005 to 2011 are
£65.6 million andthat UKvisas’ resource costs
for 2005 to 2011 are£60.8
million. I have
already referred to the success of the trials. I am not sure what the
hon. Gentleman was asking about the provider. Was he referring to the
provider of the database? We call it the IAFS—immigration and
asylum fingerprint service—database, and it is being upgraded to
IAFS plus, which will be able to deal with what will eventually be
between 15,000 and 20,000 fingerprints a day. That is a very large
amount, so some upgrading is
required. As for which
private company might be involved, I do not have that information with
me, but I would be happy to let the hon. Gentleman know who it might
be. I was struggling to remember the information, but I have now
received a little piece of inspiration and I understand the company to
be
Sagem. Meg
Hillier (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)
(Lab/Co-op):I am sure that my hon. Friend
the Minister is following with interest the human trafficking inquiry
being conducted in another place by the Joint Committee on Human
Rights. What effect does she believe the fingerprinting of people at
entry clearance points will have on the trafficking and smuggling of
people for either domestic or sexual
slavery? I read in the
regulations that people under the age of 16 have to have approval given
by a responsible adult. In some of the countries that the Minister is
talking about, particularly the African countries, networks of family
and kinship are much more extended. What is the definition of a
responsible adult? I am sure that she agrees that we do not want people
smugglers and traffickers coming in, pretending to be the parent or
guardian of a child and then in effect selling them
on.
Joan
Ryan: I thank my hon. Friend for making
those points, which are very relevant to what we are doing here today.
She correctly identifies the capability that we will have to tackle
some of the cruel and appalling abuse involved in human trafficking or,
indeed, slavery. Biometrics such as fingerprints are an established
method of fixing a person’s identity and will therefore play a
crucial role in preventing identity fraud and human trafficking, which
are so interrelated. By introducing
fingerprints into the visa application process, we will be able to check
an applicant’s immigration history before a visa is
granted. Reference
has been made to establishing the role of an adult in relation to a
person below the age of 16. In respect of anybody applying for a visa,
we check the biographical footprint. We attempt to establish identity
by that method before we fix identity using the
biometric. The
measure will make a significant difference to our ability to identify
when abuse such as human trafficking is occurring. When people enter
the country there will be a fingerprint record, and it will be possible
to identify them if they come to the notice of the authorities in any
other way, such as through a misdemeanour or through committing a
crime. There is no formal definition of “responsible
adult” but obviously clearance staff attempt, through interviews
and by checking existing records, to ensure that such a relationship
exists and that it is bona
fide. I was asked
whether fingerprints has been destroyed. Both the current and the new
regulations provide for a
10-year period of retention, because the longest visa grant is for that
period. We have not yet reached the stage at which we have held any
fingerprints for10 years, so the answer is that we have not
yet destroyed
any. I
hope that I have covered all the points that were mentioned. The
measure is an important building block in the establishment of an
identity scheme and will help in the construction of the identity
management scheme involving the national identity register, as the hon.
Member for Newark observed. We look forward to the advent of that
scheme and to all the measures that will work alongside this one to
ensure that people’s identities are safe and that our borders
are secure. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Provision of
Physical Data) Regulations
2006. Committee
rose at one minute past Three
o’clock.
| 
