House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates UK Borders Bill |
UK Borders Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Emily
Commander, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 8 March 2007(Morning)[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]UK Borders BillClause 5Registration
regulations
9
am
John
Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): I beg to move
amendment No. 72, in clause 5, page 3, line 21, at end insert
to authorised persons
only.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 78, in clause 5, page 4, line
21, at end
insert
(4A) Information
provided under subsection (1)(c) shall be used by authorised persons
only..
No.
82, in
clause 8, page 5, line 37, at
end insert
(ba) must
require the destruction of information provided in accordance with the
regulations when an individual subsequently becomes a British citizen,
and.
Damian
Green (Ashford) (Con): On a point of order, Mr.
Illsley. As you know, there have been discussions about a future
evidence-taking session. Will you update us on where negotiations have
got to on when that might take place? When might the Committee consider
a motion to decide when we will hear evidence from the groups that were
unavailable to give us evidence in our sessions last
week?
The
Chairman:
The position is that the witness remains
unavailable inasmuch as we have been unable to contact him with regard
to an evidence session next week. As soon as we do make contact with
him and get his agreement to appear before the Committee next Tuesday,
we will find a suitable point at which to interrupt either this
mornings or this afternoons proceedings for the
appropriate motion to be moved to facilitate an evidence session. The
position is simply that the witness is still unavailable, and until we
get confirmation we will be unable to proceed. As soon as that
confirmation comes through, we will interrupt the Committees
proceedings at a suitable point and make the necessary
arrangements.
Damian
Green:
Further to that point of order, Mr.
Illsley. You mention one witness. I understood that the hon. Member for
Rochdale was proposing other potential witnesses. Assuming that there
is a motion waiting to be moved at the appropriate time, may I clarify
whether it will be for one group of witnesses or
more?
The
Chairman:
That will be a matter for the Minister as and
when he moves the motion to enable the Committee to take evidence. As
to who will appear next Tuesday, my information so far is that the only
witness will be from Migrationwatch. That is the assumption on which I
am working, and any other
witnesses will have to be agreed by the usual channels. I suggest that
the usual channels get together quickly to get some
agreement.
John
Hemming:
We are well aware that when biometric information
is usedfor instance in the DNA database, which is a form of
biometric information but is not mentioned in the clausethere
can be a tendency for it to be found in the possession of commercial
companies when that is not appropriate. Companies then use that
information for the production of research. The essence of permissive
legislation is that we should not allow biometric information to float
around and end up with commercial companies.
The Gershon report places
substantial financial constraints on public sector organisations, so
they need to find additional revenue. If they can say, Well,
the law allows us to sell this material to this company, and we can get
some revenue in to cover our deficits, we must draw a line and
specify the purposes for which information can be used, by authorised
persons only. That is the essence of the
amendments.
Damian
Green:
I wish to amplify some of the arguments put so
eloquently for the Liberal Democrats by the hon. Gentleman, as I have a
degree of sympathy with them.
I suspect that the Minister
will agree that two propositions are clear. First, few pieces of
personal data are as sensitive, both for reasons of personal security
and due to the possibility of their general use by people with
malevolent intent, as those that would be put on the biometric
documents. If people were able to obtain that information for nefarious
purposes, that would be as bad as it got. The Minister relies on the
argument that biometric information is much safer and more secure than
other information. The corollary to that is that if it did fall into
the wrong hands, it would be much more powerful as a criminal tool than
any other piece of information. We have seen the credit card industry
move to the chip and PIN system in an attempt to protect the data on
our credit cards and reduce cloning. Biometric information is a
double-edged sword from a security point of view; if one can get hold
of it, one has an extremely powerful mechanism by which to commit
criminal acts against the individual concerned.
Secondly, I am sure that the
Minister does not want such information to become widely available. As
the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said, it would be extremely
valuable commercial
information.
Kitty
Ussher (Burnley) (Lab): If I understand the hon. Gentleman
correctly, he is saying that there is a danger that biometric
information could be abused if it falls into the wrong hands. Correct
me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that one cannot abuse such
information, because it requires to be checked against a
persons individual characteristics, be they their iris or their
fingerprints.
Damian
Green:
The hon. Lady has eloquently put the fundamental
misconception that lies at the heart of the Governments
attitude to biometrics. They think that biometrics are a magic wand;
that they are 100 per cent. accurate, with no failures and no problems,
and
that once everything is done on a biometric basis there will be no
difficulties. I cannot remember whether she was at the evidence session
that included Professor Anderson of Cambridge
university.
Damian
Green:
She was, so she would have heard the Professor make
the point that, given the number of visitors that we have, the
population of the country and his estimate of the small percentage of
inaccuracies that occur in fingerprinting, there would be so many false
positives or false negatives that the system would be
swamped. I am quoting from memory, but I certainly
remember him using that word. He was being fair, and he said that the
Metropolitan polices estimate of the accuracy of fingerprinting
was rather higher than his own; there was clearly a measure of genuine
scientific disagreement between them.
Even according the Metropolitan
polices estimateI think that it was one inaccuracy in a
billionthe sheer number of visitors to this country, which is
90 million a year, and the population of roughly 60 million, would mean
that there would still be a significant number of false positives and
false negatives. That biometric measure would therefore cause either
complete disaster, if relied on completely, or at best, a significant
number of problems. It might well lead to false prosecutions and all
the horrors that arise from them, particularly if people felt that one
could not argue with biometric information, which is the proposition
put by the hon. Lady. If judges and juries were to believe that, we
would have false prosecutions and the many horrors that flow from
them.
Kitty
Ussher:
Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman supports the
use of iris technology in
biometrics?
Damian
Green:
I am dealing with this scientifically, as the
Professor did. He said that iris technology, although not completely
accurate, was more so than fingerprint technology. If that is the
scientific argument, I think that we should accept it. Allow me to
clarify my position: I do not object to the use of biometrics per se,
but to the ability of the state to take such information and give
itself the power to spread it around.
The hon. Lady ought to note
that we did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading because it
contains useful elements. However, clause 5 is one of the most
sensitive parts of the Bill. We are debating the ability of the
Government to take such vital information, which might not be 100 per
cent. foolproofthe evidence suggests that it is notand
to spread it around for purposes that are fairly vague, at the moment.
They are not outlined in the Bill or the Identity Cards Act 2006.
Parliament, therefore, will have no control over it and, more
importantly, individuals will have no control over what happens to that
very sensitive personal information. They could find it being used by
agents of Government, or by commercial companies for reasons over which
they have no control. That is my fundamental objection to the course
down which the Government are going.
The amendments are useful
because they test the limits of how far information should be moved
about. The amendment about the destruction of information once a person
has become a British citizen is worth consideration by the Government.
Presumably, once someone has been granted citizenship, we can be
satisfied that he or she is of good character and has passed all the
relevant tests to become a British citizen. Given that this information
is being collected specifically for immigration purposes, and given
that such a person will no longer have to go through the immigration
system, being a British citizen, I am interested to know why the
Minister thinks it would be relevant to keep that very personal and
sensitive
information.
My final
point is regarding the spreading of this information to commercial
companies. Those of us who have seen the new scale of charges,
announced by the Minister yesterday, for all forms of visas, will have
observed a very significant cost increase. He said in a previous
sitting of the Committee that he was looking forward to a debate on how
much of the money spent on this system could be recovered through
charges. That is, I think, a legitimate debate to have in Committee. I
am sure that he will be looking forward to receiving representations
from various groups that bring people in, such as universities and
businesses, about his proposed hike in the charges. It is also relevant
that the Government will collect that information and could hand it on
to commercial companies. It will be very valuable and presumably people
will pay very large sums of money to obtain it.
I am interested to know the
Ministers attitude to that. For instance, will he operate a
market, as it were? If the Government compulsorily collect our most
sensitive information and have the power to sell it to commercial
companies, I suppose that it would be a way of solving at least one
small corner of the Home Offices budgetary problems. However, I
suspect that many people would find that a disturbing development. I
hope that he will address those points in his
response.
9.15
am
The
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Mr.
Liam Byrne):
I am very grateful for the chance to speak to
the amendment because it gives the Committee the chance to frame in the
right way some of the debate that we will have over the course of the
day. I perfectly understand that the Opposition parties will want to
table quite an extensive series of amendments to the clauses because
they are ideologically opposed to the ID cards scheme. Indeed, the
right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), with whom
the hon. Member for Ashford has been closely associated for many years,
has made very clear the Conservative pledge to cancel the ID cards
scheme. I do not know whether the Conservatives have had the chance to
meet with Intellect. It wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 6 February to
say that it was extremely concerned about the Conservatives
pledge, and very kindly and generously offered to meet them to talk
through, in a little more detail, some of the implications of that
dramatic statement. One of the causes of my concern with that
ideological opposition
Mr.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): Just to be clear, as far as
I have followed the discussion in my party, the opposition is not
ideological; it is based entirely on the merits of the argument. It is
a practical opposition, based on practical consequences. As far as I
have been able to discern, it is not ideological as the Minister
suggests.
Mr.
Byrne:
I am grateful for that clarification. I shall go
back and re-study the quotes from the right hon. Member for Witney
(Mr. Cameron), because I have clearly misread them. What
gives me great cause for concern is that one of the very practical
consequences of that opposition will be to render the country
defenceless in tackling illegal immigration in future. Before
Christmas, we explained how the reach of the national identity register
and the national identity
infrastructure
The
Chairman: Order. We are moving rather wide of the amendments and of
the clause under consideration, which relates to biometrics. While it
is difficult not to migrate into a debate on identity cards, that issue
is not part of the Bill.
Mr.
Byrne:
I am grateful for your guidance, Mr.
Illsley. However, that issue goes to the heart of the matter. The use
of biometric information, as set out in the Bill, is the essence of why
the scheme is being put in place. If we are to stop illegal
immigration, we must stop two things: illegal journeys and illegal
jobs.
Mr.
Byrne:
I shall just finish this point. In the public
evidence sessions last week, we heard from one ofthe leaders
in the fight against illegal immigrationinto Britain, Gordon
McLardy, director of risk management at National Car Parks. In
principle he fully supports biometric immigration documents, because
they will make it far easier for employers to do very simple
checks.
The reason
for introducing biometric immigration documentswhich we propose
to designate once the national identity register is up and
runningis that foreign nationals can currently proffer any of
50 or 60 different documents as evidence of their entitlement to be in
the country, to work or to receive benefits. That is too complicated.
It is prone to fraud and abuse, and any right-thinking person would say
that we should replace it. We should phase out those old, insecure
documents and phase in a single secure one.
Paul
Rowen:
I do not think that any Opposition member of the
Committee objects to the point that the Minister makes. We support the
introduction of biometric visas; that is why we did not vote against
the Bill on Second Reading. By using the word authorised in the
amendment, we in no way seek to prevent authorised employers, for
example, from using that information. However, the point made earlier
by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley is important:
there have to be safeguards. We tabled the amendment because we feel
that the wording of the Bill is too open-ended. We would like the
Minister to come forward during later stages of the Bills
passages with further regulations that show that there are built-in
safeguards. While I have no problem believing that the immigration and
nationality directorate will not pass on information, I am concerned
that we are giving a blank cheque to employers who might use that
information unscrupulously. Once the Minister brings forward
regulations that show how that will operate, we will have no
problem.
Mr.
Byrne:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point
of clarification. The only point of clarification that I would offer in
return is that if his party were to follow the Conservative party with
a pledge to cancel the ID cards system, it would also switch off the
very database that delivers biometric visas, as set out in the plans
that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon.
Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), and I produced. We
set out very clearly how the national identity infrastructure will
support a triple layer of defence, including biometric visas, so that
we can deliver tougher checks on people abroad. The Committee will be
interested to know that in the tests that we have conducted in just
seven posts abroad over a few short months, nearly 2,000 people, whom
we have deported from the country, have come up as positive hits on the
database trying to get back in. This technology will be very useful. It
will
work.
Mr.
Byrne:
I will give way in a moment. That system supports
both biometric visas and compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals. I
give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley and then the hon.
Member for
Ashford.
John
Hemming:
I am mystified as to how the Minister sees our
argument, which is that one should not be able to sell the biometric
data to commercial companies, as an argument against all biometric
data.
Mr.
Byrne:
I am not sure whether I should interpret that as a
switch in position and support for the national identity
infrastructure. I will come to the hon. Gentlemans point
directly after I have given way to the hon. Member for
Ashford.
Damian
Green:
Perhaps the Minister is rehearsing a soundbite that
he is trying to use about leaving our borders defenceless. I wish to
put that in context. Can he confirm that those proposing to come to
this country for less than three months will not be required to provide
this information, and that therefore any terrorist group or organised
crime group would find it extremely easy to get into this country under
this piece of radar? Even by the standards of Home Office soundbites,
this one is particularly
ridiculous.
Mr.
Byrne:
You are going to call me out of order very shortly,
Mr. Illsley, but the hon. Gentleman is not following the
debate closely enough. As I think he knows, three quarters of the
worlds population require a visa to come to this country, even
if it is for just one day. I agree that the imposition of a visa regime
in different parts of the world needs further
thinking.
The
reassurance that I can give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is
threefold. First, the rationale for introducing biometric immigration
documents and compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals is to help us
to come down much harder on illegal working. It is too complicated to
prove entitlement and entitlement to work today. We should phase those
documents out and phase in a more secure system. Secondly, if we are to
do that, we must equip employers with the ability effectively to take
what would legally be defined as information, such as a fingerprint,
and check that information against the
card.
It is important
to remember that authorised person has a very specific
meaning in the Bill. It cannot include employers. So the effect of the
amendment would be to stop employers taking fingerprints on a
quickcheck reader and verifying them against the card. The amendment
would unfortunately destroy employers ability to use these
cards for any practical purpose. I accept that that may not be the
intention of the amendment. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley
talked about restrictions on our ability to sell this information on.
There is no intention to sell this information on. The regulations that
we will propose would make that quite clear. Unfortunately, the
amendment would mean that employers would be denuded of the power to
take biometric information and check it against the information stored
on the chip on the card or, in due course, against the database, and it
would therefore undermine the fundamental purpose of the
scheme.
Paul
Rowen:
Given what we heard last week from Jack Dromey and
the Transport and General Workers Union, what will the Minister do
without the safeguard of the word authorised to ensure that
unscrupulous employers do not use that as a tool or a weapon against
defenceless illegal
immigrants?
Mr.
Byrne:
The point is well made, and the answer to it is to
dramatically increase the pressure on unscrupulous employers. That is
precisely why we propose much tighter working between Her
Majestys Revenue and Customs, the Department for Work and
Pensions, the national minimum wage inspectors and the immigration
service so that we can systematically hunt down the unscrupulous
businesses who exploit illegal, but often vulnerable,
labour.
I can reassure
the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley and for Rochdale that the
power we seek in the Bill is simply the power for employers to check
information that is already held on the card. It does not allow the
sale of
information.
The hon.
Member for Ashford asked why we would possibly seek the power to retain
information under certain circumstances. The answer is twofold: first,
because people who come in as immigrants may, over a period of years
and because of their contribution to this country, succeed in securing
naturalisation. They may want to roll over the biometric information
they have already provided into an identity card. We have been clear
about our ambition to designate the cards as ID cards in the future.
The reassurance I can give on that front is that there are already
obligations on the Secretary of State to destroy biometric information
if
there is no purpose in retaining it. They are set out in clause 8(3)(c)
of this Bill, and in section 143(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act
1999, which says that if someone proves that they are a British
citizen
fingerprints
must be destroyed as soon as reasonably
practicable.
Furthermore
they are entitled to request a certificate from the Secretary of State
that confirms that instruction.
Secondly, extensive safeguards
in respect of biographical information are already in place under the
Data Protection Act 1998. They say two things that are germane to the
debate: first, that we have to process that information fairly, and
secondlyand more importantly for the ambitions of the hon.
Memberfor Birmingham, Yardleywe cannot keep that
information for longer than
necessary.
Damian
Green:
The section that the Minister read out refers to
fingerprint information, not iris recognition. Is he telling the
Committee that in these circumstances the Government have a duty to
destroy that information, too? That would be more reassuring,
especially in the context of the ongoing debate about the retention of
DNA information from entirely innocent people in police inquiries. It
is a genuine and practical ongoing
debate.
Mr.
Byrne:
I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that
the obligation applies to all biometric
information.
With
those reassurances and the fact that we have teased out the practical
implications of the amendment, I hope that the hon. Member for
Birmingham, Yardley will ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
9.30
am
John
Hemming:
I had intended to intervene on the Minister
because my reading of amendment No. 78 does not accord with his in any
way. However, if we have the general view that we will not permit the
commercial sale of this information, which should be constrained by
some mechanism, we are working in the same direction. I will take
advice from my colleague.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Paul
Rowen:
I beg to move amendment No. 74, in
clause 5, page 3, line 29, leave
out from documents to end of line 30 and
insert
which may include
the following non-biometric
information
(i)
name,
(ii) date of
birth,
(iii) place of
birth,
(iv)
address,
(v) immigration
status, and
(vi) National
Insurance number, if
appropriate;.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment No. 46, in clause 5, page 3,
line 46, at end
insert
(2A) Non-biometric
information under subsection (2)(d) shall be limited
to
(a)
name,
(b) date of
birth,
(c) place of
birth,
(d)
address,
(e) immigration
status, and
(f) National
Insurance
Number..
Amendment
No. 73, in
clause 5, page 4, line 27, at
end add
(7) A biometric
immigration document may only be used in connection with an immigration
and nationality
matter..
Amendment
No. 24, in
clause 15, page 8, line 43, at
end insert
(h) non
biometric information does not include any sensitive personal
data (within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)) or
anything the disclosure of which would tend to reveal such
data..
New
clause 1No requirement to carry a biometric information
document
Nothing in
this Act authorises the making of regulations the effect of which would
be to require an individual to carry a biometric immigration document
at all
times..
Paul
Rowen:
I am grateful for the debate earlier and hope that
the Minister can deal with the amendments fairly quickly. We are
seeking clarity and reassurance from the Government on the use of other
non-biometric information, which is referred to in clause 5. That is
quite a sensitive matter, so we are attempting to specify what data may
be included, as the hon. Member for Ashford has done with his
amendments. It should be easy to specify the information listed in
amendment No. 74, and if any more information is to be specified, the
Minister should put it in the Bill. We want to ensure that immigrants
are afforded the same protection as British
citizens.
Amendment
No. 73 alludes to the use of such data for immigration and nationality
purposes only, although I accept that in this case that includes
employment. If someone has a work permit and is seeking employment, it
is quite legitimate to use those data, with the safeguards provided by
the Minister. We all share the aspiration to make our borders secure,
but we must ensure adequate safeguards for the use of those
data.
Once again, our
concern is that many of the provisions are very open-ended. The details
are not specified. Some of them might appear later in regulations, but
others might not. We are dealing with quite sensitive data, which is
why we are seeking to specify what data are necessary for the job and
that they are used only for the purposes set out in the Bill. If such
information is passed on to other people for other purposes, we should
be concerned. We have argued already about the use of DNA data. We want
to ensure that there are proper safeguards, that the data collected are
only those needed for the job and that there are strict controls on who
can use them. That would be a reasonable amendment to the
Bill.
Damian
Green:
I wish to speak specifically to amendments Nos. 46
and 24, which are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for
Reigate. I shall speak also to new clause 1. However, I have great
sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochdale; indeed, our
amendments are very similar. We are seeking to limit the non-biometric
data on the biometric documents to those listed in
amendmentNo. 46. Amendment No. 24 would ensure that
non-biometric data held on the card do not included sensitive
personal data as defined in the Data Protection Act
1998.
The purpose of
amendment No. 46 is quite simple. It attempts to address a recurrent
problem with the Bill, which is that the information that it allows the
Government to collect is extremely wide in scope. The Bill will allow
any Government to score virtually any information that they want.
Amendment No. 46 would limit that to information relevant to
immigration or work matters, because as we have heard, the purpose of
the Bill is to try to reduce the illegal employment of people in this
country and the ability of people to come and work here illegally. That
purpose is entirely sensible. We support sensible measures that attempt
to achieve that end, but we do not think that the Government should
take wider powers.
We
are not unduly cynical in thinking that many people would rightly be
worried about a Government who passed a law to give themselves almost
unlimited power to collect and store personal information about
individuals. That goes to the heart of the wider debate that we are
seeking not to have about the balance between personal security and
personal privacy, and the safety of the state. The sensible way to
proceedthat is what the amendment seeks to provideis to
say that a specific problem can be addressed by the use of the storage
and collection of specific pieces of information about specific people,
which is entirely fair, but that it is unreasonable for Governments to
have the power to collect any information that they like about any
groups of people. That is a genuine difference across the Floor of the
Committee about how far Government powers should go. The amendment
would directly limit the powers to something that is
useful.
We believe
that the list of non-biometric information in amendment No. 46 is
sensible, comprehensive and would do the job. Will the Minister tell
the Committee what additional information he believes is missing from
amendment No. 46 that would enable the documents to do what is required
of them? We have thought about that and believe that enough information
is included. If he thinks that other information is needed, I am sure
that he could table amendments at later during the Bills
passage to provide a more comprehensive list. None the less, I hope
that he will address the principle that a list of information that the
Government can collect is infinitely preferable to an open-ended power
to collect details about people living and working in this country.
Those are the issues relating to amendment No.
46.
Amendment No. 24
addresses the issue of what data the Government do and do not need to
hold. By defining non-biometric data, as we have in the amendment, we
seek to ensure that, although relevant data are available, non-relevant
data are not available, including sensitive personal data. Amendment
No. 24
provides another opportunity to state clearly that the Bill is intended
only to help control our borders and not simply to give the Government
massive information-gathering powers. That is another subject that I
hope the Minister can address. If he thinks that it can be argued that
the Government need overarching information-gathering powers, I hope
that he will share that view with the Committee and therefore with the
wider public, because it is at the heart of many of the important
debates that we are having on this
issue.
I can see no
reason why the Government should not accept new clause 1, as it would
ensure that there is no requirement in the Bill for an individual to
carry a biometric immigration document at all times. The Minister has
assured us previously in our discussions on the Bill that that is not
the Governments intention. I am glad that it is not the
Governments intention; that is a very sensible decision that
they have taken. I am sure that he would wish that sensible thinking to
be carried on by future Ministers, possibly from other parties. Binding
future Ministers to that decision by introducing the new clause would
be helpful in his own terms, not just in terms of the arguments that we
are making.
The point
that runs through the group of amendments is that this is an
immigration Billa Bill about borders. It is not a Bill that
should seek to widen the powers of police officers or immigration
officers into other areas of the law. If the Minister is intent on
issuing the biometric documents, we accept that obviously there are
circumstances in which they might reasonably be carried, such as when
attending an immigration office or a place of employment. However,
citizens in this country are not required to produce documents when
they are going about their normal daily business. Equally, those who
come to this country legally and are welcome as visitorsI will
not bore the Minister or the Committee by quoting all the things that
he, the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and all the other Ministers
say about the benefits of immigrationwe should not get into the
habit of treating such people differently in their daily lives. That
will be the danger, however, if such people feel that they must carry
papers around with
them.
I have some
sympathy with the view expressed by Liberty about that issue. One of
the features of biometric immigration documents is that they have the
potential to be used as a form of internal immigration control. The
Identity Cards Act 2006 stated that regulations requiring people to
carry identity cards cannot be passed; that was a clear statement. The
fact that there is no such restriction on the regulations in the Bill
clearly sends a signal that the use of these documents for internal
immigration control is more
likely.
The Minister
will be aware that immigration officials frequently apprehend people on
public transport. There were reports in September 2004 that, in the
previous 15 months, 235 operations had been conducted, involving the
arrest of 717 failed asylum seekers. However, thousands more people had
been stopped and questioned by immigration staff using powers that the
police are banned from
using.
One of the
Ministers various predecessors said that officials
could
legitimately question people to
determine their immigration status where there is reasonable suspicion
that a person is an immigration offender.[Official
Report, 13 September 2004; Vol. 424, c.
1406W.]
It is easy to see how,
once the biometric documents are introduced, people who do not look
like citizens of the European economic areasuch citizens will
not need these documentswill be regularly asked to establish
their
status.
Chris
Mole (Ipswich) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give some
examples of what a citizen who does not look like a normal member of
the European economic area might look like? I am struggling to imagine
what such a person might look
like.
Damian
Green:
So am I. The hon. Gentleman has seized on one of
the weaknesses of the legislation. He is going to vote for powers that
would requireindeed, they would encourageimmigration
officers to try to make that distinction. I suspect that he and I share
the view that that is potentially dangerous. Clearly, people from the
very large group of countries that form the European economic area have
some things in common, but not other things. In the past, we have seen
the police act in certain ways that successive Governments have
stopped, because they did not want the police to conduct racial
profiling or ethnic profiling in the pursuit of their activities. What
I am trying to do is stop immigration officers going down the same
route, which is what he objects to. I suspect that he and I want to
achieve the same thing, so I invite him to support the new
clause.
9.45
am
Chris
Mole:
I am struggling to understand how, in a Europe
containing citizens of all racial profiles, the measure could lead to a
racial profiling requirement on immigration
officers.
Damian
Green:
In the Liberty document, Liberty expresses the
reasonable concern that it will be predominantly ethnic minorities who
are required to satisfy immigration officers of their status. That
seems very likely. It is what happened in the past when the police were
perhaps less sensitive than they should be. That has been changed,
which is a good
thing.
Kitty
Ussher:
What does the hon. Gentleman say to British
Muslims in my constituency who would like ID cards to prove that they
are here in a valid way and are
British?
Damian
Green:
Of course they should be regarded as valid British
citizens. It is up to any of us to carry identity documents
voluntarily, but I suspect that it is the compulsory element that
divides the hon. Lady and me. I have not heard a huge clamour from
ethnic minority communities in any part of the country for compulsory
identity
cards.
David
T.C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree
that we should be able to tell British Muslims that of course they are
British, and they
should not need ID cards to prove it? If they feel that they need to
carry one, they can already carry a driving
licence.
To return to
a previous point, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be totally
unacceptable for black and Asian people to be pulled over randomly and
asked difficult questions by over-zealous immigration officers simply
because of the colour of their skin? That is a worry that we
share.
Damian
Green:
My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is precisely
my point, and it is noteworthy that Labour Members are so sensitive
about it. I suspect that it reveals the underlying unease on the
Government Benches about the powers that the Government are taking.
They are right to be uneasy, because the measures could lead to a
situation that none of us want, in which the dangers he mentions become
quite
common.
Mr.
Byrne:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I rise to be
helpful. Like me, he will know that under race relations legislation,
it is not lawful for either a police officer or an immigration officer
to examine somebody on the basis of their colour. We have heard a great
deal during our debates about the Committees high regard for
the professionalism of the immigration service. Will he make it clear,
unless he can produce evidence to the contrary, that he does not
support the view that immigration officers are targeting people of a
different colour for immigration
operations?
Damian
Green:
There is clearly no evidence of it, but I cited a
report involving what must have been quite a successful operation, if
it apprehended 717 failed asylum seekers, whom I assume the Minister
would want to identify and do something with. That involved
interviewing thousands of people. If the Bill will introduce a period
in which compulsory biometric documents are forced upon a group of
people in our country who come from other countrieswhether they
are Muslims in Burnley, Afro-Caribbeans in London or members of the
large Nepalese community in my constituencybut are not carried
by people who were born in this country, that will be the difference.
The defining characteristic of those who will be forced by the
Government to carry such documents is that they are foreign or were
born abroad. If he does not think that that is relevant, he is
wrong.
Mr.
Byrne:
The hon. Gentleman slipped slightly with his
language. He said that we were proposing to force people to carry the
documents. There is no such intention or proposal in the
Bill.
Damian
Green:
Exactly. That is what new clause 1 would make
clear. The Minister has just repeated that what is in the new clause is
indeed his intention, which is why I invite him to accept
it.
Kitty
Ussher:
Is not the logical extension of thehon.
Gentlemans argumentwe do not want to differentiate
people born abroad from people born herethat everybody should
be forced to have ID cards?
Damian
Green:
That is the modern, 21st century version of the
classic equality of misery argument that we have heard
from the Labour Benches through the decadesthat if we are to do
something unpleasant to some people we should do it to everyone because
then it is fair. I have always thought that that is a rotten argument
and a rotten basis for a political philosophy. It would be equally bad
if it was used to foist compulsory documents on
people.
Mr.
Jackson:
I reassure my hon. Friend that, contrary to the
impression that he might have got from the hon. Member for Burnley, my
8,000 Muslim constituents are not clamouring to have an ID card or a
biometric immigration registration card. I believe that my hon. Friend
will agree that that has the potential to exacerbate a breakdown in
community cohesion. In cosmopolitan areas with a large mix of ethnic
and religious groups, there is inevitably a mix of British citizens and
people from outside the European economic area. Incrementally, an
imperative will come about and the document will be demanded of certain
racial groups. As a result we will have de facto racial profiling,
causing community tensions and problems. That may not be the
Governments intention, but it will unfortunately be the
result.
Damian
Green:
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, not least
because I am sure that that is not the intention of the Government or
anyone on the Government Back Benches. The most coherent expression of
the problem came from the Secretary of State for Defence when he was
Minister with responsibility for immigration. He said that officials
could
legitimately
question people to determine their immigration status where there is
reasonable suspicion that a person is an immigration
offender.[Official Report, 13 September 2004;
Vol. 424, c. 1406W.]
So the task
that we are giving immigration officers is to decide whether they have
a reasonable suspicion that someone is an immigration offender. When
they know that people can prove that they are not immigration offenders
by using the document in question, it is clearly at least possible that
they will be inclined to ask people for the document and that there
will therefore be a de facto quasi-compulsion on people to carry
it.
Paul
Rowen:
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman recalls
the evidence given by Professor Ross Anderson, who talked about the
Baader-Meinhof gang and the German experience of requiring the use of
ID cards. He said that it had had no success whatever in tackling that
gang.
Damian
Green:
There are two separate good points there. The first
is that Professor Anderson, as a foreigner in Germany in the 1970s, got
used to carrying his documents because it was easy. There was therefore
what I believe he described as feature creep, which is
one of the problems of the proposal. The second good point was that it
does not work. The foundations on which the Minister is building the
edifice of a safer society, through the compulsory biometric document
that the hon. Member for Burnley wants us all to carry, do not make us
safer.
John
Hemming:
Perhaps the hon. Member for Burnley has let the
cat out of the bag. Feature creep is going on, as it is clear that the
Bill will empower an immigration officer, for instance, to stand with
an iris scanner on the Alum Rock road in the Ministers
constituency and require people to go through iris scanning to confirm
their immigration
status.
Damian
Green:
I suspect that the hon. Lady does not want it to
happen either, but perhaps she will make that
clear.
Kitty
Ussher:
I was hoping not to intervene again, but I feel
compelled to. I was simply pointing out the illogicality of the
Conservative position in being in favour of biometric documentation for
immigration purposesas the hon. Gentleman has said, he did not
vote against the Bill on Second Readingbut saying that
subsequent differentiation of people according to whether they were
born here or abroad would be a problem. I simply wanted to ask whether
it does not logically follow from that that everyone should have ID
cards. I was not saying that that is in the Bill, or even expressing my
own view. I was simply trying to expose the illogicality of his
position.
Damian
Green:
Since, as the Minister has said, we are
pragmatically and in principle against compulsory ID cards, because we
think that they will be both expensive and useless, I fail to see the
illogicality. We are not against biometric visas, but that is precisely
why we have tabled the amendments. That is where the hon. Ladys
argument falls down. The purpose of new clause 1, first of all, is to
make it clear in the Bill that no one should be expected to carry the
documents. That will send a powerful signal to the forces of law and
order, whether those are police or immigration officers, that they
should not expect people to carry particular documents to prove their
identity, and in particular that they should not ask particular groups
in society to carry them.
The other amendments, tabled by
me and by the hon. Member for Rochdale, would clarify and restrict the
other information that could be included, so that the system does not
become a catch-all for the collection, keeping and dissemination of
huge amounts of personal data. We are trying to restrict the documents
so that they can do something useful. It will be extremely damaging if
they become so widespread that they do more harm than good. The
amendments and new clause are attempts to improve the Bill so that it
does what we all want it to do, which is to make our borders more
secure. As it stands it allows Governments to collect information and
take to themselves powers that are illegitimate in principle and will
make things worse in general. In particular they might make life more
difficult for minority communities. I cannot believe that Labour
Members want that to happen.
John
Hemming:
There are two key aspects of the group of
amendments. The point about new clause 1 has been dealt with at length
and it is clear that the provisions should be in the Bill in some form.
Otherwise, the Governments clear intention is some form of
feature creepstarting with a reasonable attempt to secure
borders and ensure that we can control processes and identify
peoples immigration status on the basis of reliable
information, and then having it move in a very dangerous direction so
that people all over the country must randomly show papers.
The second aspect is
constraints on the non-biometric information that is included. That
could be achieved by regulations. Secondary legislation that specified
the non-biometric information that could be collected under clause 5(5)
would satisfy the requirements of parliamentary accountability and
control. We should then be comfortable about withdrawing our amendment.
The point about new clause 1 is an important matter of principle. We do
not want feature
creep.
Mr.
Byrne:
This has been a helpful debate and I shall try to
throw a little light on it. I was particularly interested in the
remarks of the hon. Member for Ashford. I think that they will be of
interest to the right hon. Members for Witney and for Haltemprice and
Howden. A couple of things that may be of particular interest are,
first, the fact that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of biometric visas
when his right hon. Friend the Member for Witney has decided to shut
the system down, and, secondly, the fact that he said, I think, that he
is opposed to ID cards in principle, whereas his right hon. Friend said
that it was simply a matter of
practicality.
10
am
I want to deal
with two issues at the heart of the amendments, and I should say at the
outset that I think I am in sympathy with many of the ambitions
suggested in the amendments. The first issue is that the information in
the amendment is too prescriptive. I understand that it is, to a
degree, a probing amendment and that part of the purpose in tabling it
is to get more information from the Government about the kind of
information that we would seek to
register.
The point to
tease out is that when we are talking about a biometric document that
is an immigration document, there is a great deal of information, which
is not set out in this amendment, that it is important to capture. Some
of that information would fall under the definition of sensitive
personal information set out in the Data Protection Act.
For example, if somebody is
applying for any kind of immigration document, the details that they
would need to provide would include not only the holders name
but nationality, gender, date and place of birth, certain biometric
information and a reference number. Crucially, they would also include
conditions of their leave and some information germane to why that type
of leave has been granted.
For example, if a person was
applying for a biometric immigration document and their leave was on
the basis of their being a spouse, there would be
information that would be captured about their marriage and therefore
their sexuality. That would be classed under the Data Protection Act as
sensitive personal information. That is why the information that is set
out in this amendment is slightly restrictive.
I can reassure the Committee
that there is no ambition to capture information that is not currently
captured during the immigration process. Part of the reason for seeking
the flexibility to set out many of these categories of information in
regulations rather than in primary legislation is that the immigration
system may change. There might be information that it is important to
capture in the future that is different from that which is currently
captured.
The other
point is that there are proposals across the European Union to
introduce biometric resident permits. Our ambition is that the
biometric immigration document satisfies the conditions of that
forthcoming regulation. Those regulations are not yet set. When they
are, we would not want to subject the House to another Bill to get the
documentation straight. That is part of the reason why we think it may
be more appropriatesubject to appropriate parliamentary
scrutiny, which has to be part of the processto allow some
flexibility. That is why we propose the regulation-making
power.
Damian
Green:
The Minister leaves me very uneasy. He has given
one example of one area that is covered by section 2 of the Data
Protection Act, which is the sexuality of an individual, and has
confirmed that the Government will continue to collect, store and
potentially disseminate such information. However, they could easily
exclude some of the other areas of section 2. Are they proposing to
collect details of racial and ethnic origin, political opinions,
religious beliefs, whether a person is a member of a trade union and
their physical or mental health condition? Would the Minister care to
exclude any of those, or is he giving himself the power to collect all
that information at some
stage?
Mr.
Byrne:
I would give the Committee the reassurance that
there is no ambition to extend the scope of the information that we
currently collect as part of the immigration system. I am sure that
many of my comrades in the wider labour movement would be interested in
our finding out whether people were members of trade unions, for
example, to help them in their recruitment work, but no, I am afraid
that weare not seeking that power. We think that the
parliamentary process is important and that is why we are proposing the
affirmative resolution procedure for the regulations that we are
proposing under the
Bill.
Mr.
James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): Having served on these
Committees for quite some time, I have often heard expressions such as
having no ambition or having no plans.
I wonder whether the Minister would take things a little bit further
and say that the Government do not wish to or, better
still, will
not.
Mr.
Byrne:
I could say that, but as the hon. Member for
Hertsmere knows, being as au fait as I am with the constitution,
rapidly changing as it is, I could not bind my successors, either in
this Government or another.
It is important for the
Committee to recognise that different categories of information are
required for different kinds of immigration status. For example,
sometimes people apply for leave on the grounds of private medical
treatment, and they sometimes do so on the grounds that they are a
minister of religion. I give the reassurance that, apart from the
biometric information, there is no ambition to extend the scope of the
information that we currently collect as part of operating a robust and
effective immigration
system.
John
Hemming:
I think that the Minister isbeing
slightly disingenuousif that is not an unparliamentary
wordin saying that he is unable to bind subsequent Governments.
The Bill can bind subsequent Governments, and he can agree that things
go into the Bill to bind subsequent Governments. Essentially, what we
are looking for is a constraint through statutory instrument or primary
legislation on what additionalother than
biometricinformation can be held. Similarly, we are looking for
a constraint on the face of the Bill on the way in which the system can
be used, along the lines of new clause 1. I accept that the Minister
personally cannot bind other Governments, but by agreeing that things
go in theBill, he can have the effect of binding subsequent
Governments.
Mr.
Byrne:
I am grateful for the hon. Gentlemans
acknowledgment of the limits on my power. However, the Government
believe that this is best dealt with in regulationswhich go
through the affirmative resolution procedure, including in the other
place and the Floor of the Housebecause the kind of immigration
information that we collect might have to change, as with my example of
a minister of religion. In future, if we were to introduce different
kinds of immigration categories, whether for a minister of religion or
for leave granted on the basis of private medical treatment, it might
be important to capture different kinds of information, relevant to the
kind of leave being granted. If a different category of leave was
introduced, it would be nonsense to have to take another piece of
primary legislation all the way through the House. I do not think that
anyone would thank us for
that.
John
Hemming:
To clarify, it would be feasible to specify in
the Bill that the regulations should specify which non-biometric
information was held. That would make us feel comfortable; we would be
willing to withdraw our amendments on that basis. It is also possible
to make changes through the regulatory reform
procedure.
Mr.
Byrne:
The hon. Gentleman is being utterly reasonable. The
regulations and immigration rules will set out the information that is
required.
John
Hemming:
If the Bill requires the regulations to specify
what the non-biometric details are, then future Governments are
constrained by statute; otherwise, the regulations could say that
non-biometric information will be held as the Minister sees fit, which
is not a constraint.
Mr.
Byrne:
My understanding of the legislation proposed is
that it does say that the information that we are requesting must be
set out in the regulationsclarification will arrive from left
field in a moment, to help the hon. Gentleman and
me.
I believe that
there is a strong argument for not setting out on the face of the Bill
precisely which categories of information must be collected. There is a
strong argument for doing that in regulations. I think it is important
that those regulations go through the affirmative resolution procedure.
Of course, the Government are subject to legislation that is already in
place. For example, the Data Protection Act 1998 imposes restrictions
on the way in which information is processed. The hon. Member for
Ashford said in an aside that he was concerned that we might collect
information and share it freely. That is impossible under the Data
Protection Act, and the Bill also provides for restrictions on the kind
of information that we collect and the uses to which we can put
it.
John
Hemming:
I was hoping that the piece of paper that the
Minister has just received might provide some indication as to how the
Bill requires the regulations to specify those items of non-biometric
information that can be held. If the Bill does not require the
regulations to specify the items, then the regulations may specify
them, but they may not. The point about primary legislation is to bind
subsequent Governments, so again I ask the Minister to consider that
point.
Mr.
Byrne:
Again, the hon. Gentleman is being utterly
reasonable. The wording of the Bill is that items may
be set out in the regulations. The intention is that they should be, so
if we have opportunities to tighten that wording further in order to
put my intention beyond doubt, we will consider them.
I want to move on to new clause
1, because it concerns an important matter for debate. I remind the
Committee that race relations legislation, training and the
professionalism of immigration officers all point in one direction:
people cannot stop and search on the basis of the colour of
somebodys skin; they have to have a reasonable basis for
questioning, and remedies are available if there is an abuse of that
power. I was very clear on Second Reading, in response to a point that
was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow
(Mr. Gerrard), that there is absolutely no intention to give
police or immigration officers additional powers to stop a person whom
they suspect of being a foreign national and require him to submit to a
biometric verification check. It should not be possible for an
immigration officer to draw an inference that somebody is a foreign
national if he does not produce a card. That would not be a reasonable
thing to do.
The hon.
Member for Monmouth will know better than I that the powers of the
police to stop and search a person are based on a reasonable suspicion
that the person is carrying stolen or prohibited articles or relate to
intelligence-led policingfor instance, if violence is
anticipated in a particular area. The exercise of stop-and-search
powers must be based on accurate and current intelligence or the
behaviour of the person, or the person must answer a specific
description relating to an offence.
David
T.C. Davies:
I hesitate to beg to differ with the
Minister, but surely he is referring to stop-and-search powers under
section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Stop-and-search
powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and those under the
public order legislation that is used during football matches, are much
wider. In particular, the terrorism legislation allows the police to
randomly stop and search anybody. The public order legislation is
usually operated on a 24-hour basis and it, too, allows the police to
stop, question and search people without having any reasonable grounds
for doing so.
Will
the powers that the Minister envisages giving to immigration officers
be along the lines of those in section 1 of PACE or more like those in
the terrorism and public order legislation that I have
mentioned?
10.15
am
Mr.
Byrne:
The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me, but I
do not know the contents of each sectionof PACE. However, I
shall be happy to provide clarification. I was referring not to any
particular section of PACE, but to the generality of the guidance that
it contains. That is why I mentioned the power of stop and search when
violence is anticipated in a particular area.
The intention and the ambition
of the Government in this Bill are clear. There are already appropriate
protections in place against stop-and-search which, we believe, stop
immigration officers from drawing adverse inferences if somebody is
unable to produce a card. We should consider still further putting that
beyond all reasonable doubt, and I will reflect on this
mornings debate.
Kerry
McCarthy (Bristol, East) (Lab): Will the Minister confirm
my belief that the Home Office has a duty to carry out a race equality
impact assessment? It is required to publish that in the course of the
Bills passage. When is that likely to be, and will it will take
into account some points made just now in the debate?
Mr.
Byrne:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that
intervention, and will seek to clarify precisely when that document
will be available. The thrust of her remarks is absolutely right; there
are serious, important and necessary responsibilities on the Home
Office and its agencies to operate in accordance with the Race
Relations Act 1976, which extend to the activities of officers employed
by the immigration service.
I will reflect on our debate
today to think about whether the Government should be bringing forward
ideas, or rather amendments and clarifications, that put this question
beyond all reasonable doubt. I will give way before I
conclude.
Damian
Green:
I am grateful that the Minister has said that he
will take this subject away to think about it, but I am now slightly
puzzled. He makes the point that various Actsnotably the Race
Relations Actstop racial profiling by police, immigration
officers, or whoever. Yet I am sure that the Minister will be aware of
the case that I was quoting, which was quite a common operation on
public transport with thousands of people interviewed and hundreds
apparently caught
breaking the law. How, in practice, do immigration officers operate such
action? Are they simply doing everyone on a particular bus or train, or
in a particular areanear a particular place of work,
perhaps?
Mr.
Byrne:
If it is helpful to the hon. Member, I will happily
furnish the extensive guidance on this Bill. However, the key points
for this debate are twofold.
First, the Race Relations Act
stops immigration officers targeting people for interview, or indeed
anything else, on an irrational basis such as the colour of their skin.
Secondly, if a person is not required to carry a card, as they are not
by this Bill or by any other legislation currently on the books, it is
therefore not reasonable to say that they are an immigration offender
because they are not carrying one. I will happily reflect, based on our
debate on new clause 1, on whether we need to put the question beyond
all shadow of a doubt.
In summary, the
reassurances with which I want to provide the Committee are these. It
is an error to stipulate in the legislation the specifications of the
data that we collect; it is important that we have that flexibility in
regulationssubject to parliamentary affirmative
procedureto collect information that is relevant and germane to
the kind of leave that we are granting people under the immigration
laws. A secondary reassurance is that the Data Protection Act imposes
restrictions on how that information is processed and shared; that must
be lawful and fair, and it must be stored securely. Finally, I will
reflect on our debate on new clause 1, as I said, to see if we should
provide further reassurances on the question of stop-and-search and put
it beyond all reasonable doubt.
Paul
Rowen:
We have had a good debate this morning, and
received quite helpful clarification from the Minister. By agreeing to
tighten up the Bill to ensure that there is an affirmative resolution
on the information that will be required, he has been very
helpful.
Our purpose
all along has been to ensure that the Bill achieves its purpose, and
that there is no feature creep. The evidence given by Professor Ross
Anderson illustrates some of the concerns that UK universities have, in
his case, about the effect of some of this legislation in discouraging
people from coming to this country. We have only to look at what is
happening in America. I think that Disney has been reported to have had
urgent considerations owing to the drop in the number of visitors to
Disneyland in Florida resulting from the operation of Americas
border controls. We do not want to discourage people from coming here
for legitimate reasons. [Laughter.] Well, hon. Members might not
think that Disney is important, but it has economic concerns. We must
consider what could happen
here.
I shall happily
not press my amendments, but we are concerned about new clause 1 and,
in particular, the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley. I could ask
any one of my British Muslim constituents whether
they are happy about carrying a card, and the answer would be a firm no.
They feel already that they are under pressure owing to the effects of
anti-terrorism legislation. We must be clear on what the biometric visa
will be used for. Using it at the borders or to verify employment would
be legitimate in order to tighten up and ensure fairness in what is
going on. However, should we require people to carry a card as a means
of verification? The hon. Member for Ashford sought clarification of
what immigration officers do when they stop people on trains and buses.
That is important. We want firm, fair and effective controls, but we do
not want them used inappropriately.
The Conservative party and
Liberal Democrats are firmly of the view that ID cards will not stop
terrorism and do not think that requiring a biometric visa to be
carried is legitimate or fair. I am sure that the hon. Member for
Ashford will confirm this: we would like to press this to a vote. If it
is lost, hopefully the Minister will return to us at a later stage with
clarification to put that beyond all reasonable
doubt.
Damian
Green:
I should like to amplify one point that the hon.
Member for Rochdale just made. ID cards will not make us safer from
terrorism. Of course, he is right: our parties agree. To be fair, after
the July bombings, the previous Home Secretary pointed out that they
would not have been prevented by ID cards. That was a fair point at a
very difficult time. He was right to make it. I think, therefore, that
combating terrorism must be paramount in the minds of Home Office
Ministers. It is important to take that away from our debates on
unemployment and border
controls.
Mr.
Byrne:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge as
well that the current Home Secretary has been very clear about the fact
that he sees the role of identity technology and systems as helping
disrupt organised crime and terrorism. Like me, the hon. Gentleman will
have heard in debates and in the media reports of, for example, the
al-Qaeda training manual, which encouraged its commanders to multiply
as many identities as possible in order to allow them to defraud the
banking system. Those multiple identities can often help perpetrate the
kind of fraud that finances some terrorist operations. The point is
about disruption, not ending
terrorism.
Damian
Green:
I am grateful to the Minister. Indeed, I was
following him. Of course, one suspects regrettably that al-Qaeda and
other terrorist organisations would find new methods and clearly
disrupting them in that is important. However, I suspect that we are
entering a fascinating debate that does not have much to do with the
amendments and new clause before
us.
The Minister was
reasonably generous in his response and I hope that he recognises the
importance of the underlying issues of our
amendments.
It
being twenty-five minutes past Ten oclock,
The
Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at half-past Two
oclock.
|
| |
©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 9 March 2007 |