The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Brake,
Tom
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(LD)
Campbell,
Mr. Alan
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Cash,
Mr. William
(Stone)
(Con)
Chapman,
Ben
(Wirral, South)
(Lab)
Clarke,
Mr. Kenneth
(Rushcliffe)
(Con)
Gilroy,
Linda
(Plymouth, Sutton)
(Lab/Co-op)
Grieve,
Mr. Dominic
(Beaconsfield)
(Con)
Gwynne,
Andrew
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
Hain,
Mr. Peter
(Neath)
(Lab)
Hamilton,
Mr. Fabian
(Leeds, North-East)
(Lab)
Heyes,
David
(Ashton-under-Lyne)
(Lab)
Hillier,
Meg
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department)
Hodgson,
Mrs. Sharon
(Gateshead, East and Washington, West)
(Lab)
Hollobone,
Mr. Philip
(Kettering)
(Con)
Huhne,
Chris
(Eastleigh)
(LD)
James,
Mrs. Siân C.
(Swansea, East)
(Lab)
Newmark,
Mr. Brooks
(Braintree)
(Con)
Annette Toft, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
Sixth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 19
February
2008
[Hywel
Williams
in the
Chair]
Draft Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (Duty to Share Information and Disclosure of Information for Security Purposes) Order 2008
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Meg
Hillier):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act
2006 (Duty to Share Information and Disclosure of Information for
Security Purposes) Order
2008.
As
ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Williams. The order is made under sections 36 and 38 of the
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. Section 36 introduced a
requirement for the Secretary of State, Her Majestys Revenue
and Customs and chief police officers to share passenger, crew,
freight, service and other travel-related information specified by
order where the information is likely to be of use for immigration,
police or Revenue and Customs purposes. Section 38 introduced a
statutory gateway to allow those various border agencies to disclose
similar information specified by order to the security and intelligence
agencies where it is relevant to their statutory purposes.
The order specifies the
travel-related information that must be shared between the agencies
under section 36 and that which may be shared with the security and
intelligence agencies under section 38. Travel-related information can
be broken down into three clear categories: information about the
travel documents or journey of a passenger or crew member; information
held by the border agencies about a passenger or crew member or their
journey or a freight movement; and information about or related to
freight.
To set the
order in a wider context, globalisation and the increase of traffic
flowing into and out of the UK is placing increasing demands on the
border controls and agencies affected by the order. That is why the
Government are implementing the most comprehensive package of
institutional and practical immigration reform for about 100
yearsno substantial changes have occurred since 1909. Two
important proposals are involved. First, there is the establishment of
the UK Border Agency, for which my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders
and Immigration has responsibility, and a unified border force that
brings the work of the Border and Immigration Agency, HMRC at the
border and UKvisas into a single, more powerful agency.
The second important proposal is
the creation of the e-Borders programme, which will help to achieve the
Governments objective, by the end of 2008, of beginning to
count foreign nationals into and out of the countrysomething we
have been unable to do since 1994, when border controls were scrapped.
It also introduces compulsory watch-list checks for high-risk
journeys before people land. E-Borders will capture data on the majority
of international passenger and crew movements by the end of next year.
There has already been some success with the pilot project Operation
Semaphore.
The order
is essential to the future work of the UK Border Agency. It enables
agencies to work together more closely using new structures, techniques
and technology to deliver a co-ordinated and efficient model of border
management to meet the travel demands of the 21st century. It is a
strategically important issue both at e-Borders level and at the local
tactical level, through the freight targeting hub at Dover and the
joint intelligence cell at Gatwick and other
airports.
Neither the
e-Borders programme nor other joint working arrangements can function
effectively without the routine and bulk sharing of travel-related data
permitted by this order. Some data-sharing already takes place, but it
is not permitted in volume. It is currently permitted only on a
case-by-case basis, and justification has to be given for every
disclosure. That hinders the work of the agencies. The examination of
travel data agency by agency may involve sequential interceptions by
three agencies rather than one co-ordinated response. That does not
help the agencies, which may find that they are not in sync with the
intervention and have to co-ordinate incredibly well in order to be in
sync. Neither, crucially, does it help the traveller, who might be
considerably inconvenienced if they happen to be the target of three
agencies work.
By placing an
obligation on the border agencies to share specified travel-related
information, the order facilitates their ability to share routinely and
in volume data on people and freight crossing the border. That must, of
course, be provided on the basis that it is likely to be used for
immigration, Revenue and Customs or police purposes. It is key to
effective border management. The pooling of data will allow us to
develop a much better awareness of suspect passengers travel
patterns and networks, and to pre-screen passengers and identify those
who carry a high risk of involvement in illicit activity. I stress that
it will be a blind process and select people on the basis not of their
surname, faith or what they look like but of their passenger movements.
Information sharing will be triggered by a passenger or piece of
freight
travelling.
Mr.
Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I appreciate that
that is the purpose. If I understand it correctly, that means that
every passenger and freight movement in and out of the United Kingdom
will be recorded. Will the Minister give the Committee some idea of the
total number of freight and passenger movements that it is estimated
will be thus recorded in any 12-month
period?
Meg
Hillier:
I certainly can, and if the hon. Gentleman bears
with me, I shall pick up that point in my summing up rather than
searching out the figure now. It is a considerable number, and we are
already screening 30 million passenger movements each year through our
e-Borders pilot, the Semaphore
programme.
As I was
saying, it is important to stress that this will be a blind
process; it is not about discriminating
but about using intelligence about passenger and freight movement to
target intervention to the most necessary individuals or movements. It
will enable us to identify the individuals who present the biggest
threat to the UK and mount an appropriate and co-ordinated response
that will help to solve those
problems.
Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): Before the
Minister moves on, will she clarify what she said about movements? Will
the system be triggered by a set of movements that have previously been
identified as suspicious, rather than just by any movement from
anywhere to
anywhere?
Meg
Hillier:
I make two points to answer that. First, for the
order to apply and information to be shared, it must relate to a
passenger. The hon. Gentleman, for instance, is sitting in this
Committee room, so data sharing would not kick in. Were he to travel to
New York tonight, that would be the point at which it would kick
in.
On intelligence and
how the data will be used, the system will pick up patterns of
behaviour. The trigger might be if there were a known human trafficking
route that people had travelled, perhaps buying their tickets in cash
at a particular travel agency. Such data would be pooled, the agencies
would be alerted and they could take action and intervene. They might
not even intervene at that point; they would continue to gather
intelligence and data and intervene when they felt an arrest or
enforcement action was necessary. I hope that that gives the hon.
Gentleman some understanding of how it will
work.
Mr.
Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Can the Minister
clarify whether the order will include passengers travelling within the
European economic area, and whether data sharing as a result of the
order could be triggered by other obligations that the immigration,
police or revenue and customs authorities have to other European Union
countries? Could its provisions be triggered by investigations that
start in other EU countries with which the UK has an obligation to
co-operate?
Meg
Hillier:
On European passenger movements, yes, it will
apply to anyone coming in or out of the UK borders. We also have an
agreement that is about to come into place between the EU and Australia
on the sharing of passenger name record information. Some European
countries already share passenger name records. I was in Ljubljana at
the end of January presenting to European Interior Ministers what we in
the UK have been doing on sharing those records through the e-Borders
programme. A proposal is currently being debated in Europe to share
passenger name record informationthe information that airlines
get, in particularto tackle terrorism and serious organised
crime. We welcome that step and would also like it to be used to tackle
serious crimes such as murder and sexual offences. That debate has been
going on. We have also been hosting many of our European counterparts
at the joint operating control centre where we currently carry out
Project Semaphore to see for themselves the reality. I am writing to
many of those countries to share with them some of the
important work we have done to square this with data protection
legislation in the UK, which has been a concern for some of our
European colleagues.
A
lot of work has been going on internationally to ensure that we have a
common approach. It is worth citing the Minister for Justice, Equality
and Law Reform for the Republic of Ireland, Brian Lenihan, who said
that we should be doing this in Europe, because otherwise we will have
a second-rate protection for our citizens compared with the United
States, which is finalising an arrangement with the European Union on
passenger name records. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some
context about the international challenges of this issue. In terms of
the data trigger for investigations, clearly some data sharing goes on
with watch lists. Perhaps I can pick up on some of those issues in more
detail in my summing up, rather than delay now, when I am sure other
hon. Members wish to speak.
Another key element of this
order is its impact on carriers. The order means that carriers will
only have to supply their passenger and crew data to the Government
once, rather than receiving individual requests from each of the
agencies. Where those carriers currently have good systems, it is going
to be much easier for them to do that. The cost of providing the data
averages 14p per passenger. Obviously, that average masks a range, but
it can cost as little as 0.04p per passenger. For most carriers, that
is not a burden, although there are issues with some carriers. If hon.
Members have questions, I will be happy to go into
that.
We know that the
approach is highly effective. Project Semaphore has demonstrated the
benefits enormously, as I have mentioned. We currently screen 30
million alerts and, in the three years the project has been running,
that has resulted in more than 1,600 arrests for crime including
murder, rape and assault, the offloading of passengers who would not
qualify for entry to the UK, and seizure of many false documents,
tobacco and drugs. Semaphore has made a very real contribution to the
fight against terrorism. I am sure hon. Members will understand why I
cannot go into detail about those cases, but I am sure you will agree,
Mr. Williams, that the order is important in that respect as
well. As I have mentioned, we are already sharing with European
countries on this issue, particularly because of the terror-related
issues
Although
the UK is at the forefront, it is not alone. The United States,
Australia and other countries are becoming involved in this, and taking
up this approach to passenger screening. The benefits of the order are
clear, but recent events remind us of the importance of sharing
information securely, safely and proportionately. I know that that is a
matter of particular concern to the
Committee.
I
reassure hon. Members that the order does not give the border agencies
free rein to share data without limitation. Only the travel data
specified may be shared, and that data must have been assessed, at the
outset, as likely to be of use for immigration, police or Revenue and
Customs purposes. These are set down in law. In addition, in the next
six months, we will be having a review along with the information
commissioner, after a lot of discussion, to make sure that the data we
are using for these purposes are still necessary and vital.
It should also be noted by the
Committee that the order applies only to sharing between the border
agencies under section 36 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 2006,
and with the security and intelligence agencies. That is where I
started, but it is also worth reminding hon. Members of the scope of
the
order.
Mr.
Hollobone:
Does the order do anything to address the
problem of people getting on planes, coming to the UK, losing their
documentation deliberately on board, and then arriving at Heathrow, or
wherever, and claiming
asylum?
Meg
Hillier:
It is not specifically tasked to deal with that
issue, but clearly if one has information on boarding an aeroplane, and
has provided passport details, that informationpassenger name
record and other informationwould be passed through. It would
therefore be clear that that documentation had existed at some point.
Perhaps I could go into more detail in my summing up about whether
there may be any further
implications.
In
addition to the order, there are three other statutory instruments
before the House. One is the code of practice currently before
Parliament. That is where we have worked particularly with the
information commissioners office, because this code will
regulate very clearly the sharing of information under this order. It
lays down detailed and stringent data protection and data retention
guidelines, and ensures that the approach is legitimate, fair and
proportionate in terms of the data being shared. I am confident that
the data protection obligations have been fully met and I would not
want to stand before the Committee today, Mr. Williams,
unless I and the Government were sure of
that.
I trust that hon. Members will
join me in supporting the order. As I have mentioned, it forms a
package of secondary legislation and it will provide an essential
legislative platform for the UK e-Borders programme and for more
effective joint working between the agencies and, in the future, the UK
Border Agency when it is created. That is essential for delivering a
co-ordinated and efficient model of border management, which is capable
of dealing with the rapid growth in passenger numbers. I am sure that
hon. Members will want to support the order, because it secures our
borders and ensures the safety and security of the public. I commend
the order to the
Committee.
4.46
pm
Mr.
Grieve:
May I join in welcoming you, Mr.
Williams, to the Chair? I would also like to reassure the Minister that
we will not be opposing the order. The intention of the order is one
that I am sure the entire Committee will have no difficulty in
supporting, so I hope that the Minister will excuse me if I just go
through a number of points on which I seek some
clarification.
It
seems to be quite clear on the basis of the question that I asked the
Minister that we are dealing here, in terms of raw data, with a
colossal amount of
information. I think that the figure that she put forward, off the top
of her head, was 30 million movements per annum, each one of which, I
assume, will not only record the name but the passport number and
presumably the other details that were given to the carrier in the
first place, including the address provided by the person. If I
understand her correctly, all that information will be recorded on to a
raw database, where it can be assessed and from which the information
can be obtained and then possibly shared out.
Logically, that brings me to my
first question. I am left with some uncertainty as to whether all the
border agencies will have access to the entirety of the raw data, or
whether it is intended that only the material that is deemed to be
useful because it is extrapolated will be provided to the individual
agencies. If it is the latter, we need some clarification as to which
organisation will hold the entirety of the raw data that is supplied;
data that, as I have said, is going to be colossal in
quantity.
The next
question that must arise is about data security. Of course, I am
perfectly mindful that the Minister is being transparently sincere when
she says that it is the intention that this data should be kept secure.
However, she will be perfectly aware from the examples that have
cropped up in the last 12 months, including examples from some of the
agencies with which we are concerned here, that data have a remarkable
capacity, particularly when there is a huge amount, to go absent
without leave. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain how
the security of the data will be ensured.
That issue of security seems to
link into my first question, which was whether all these agencies will
have access to the entirety of the raw data or whether there will be
one agency that will control the raw data and that will decide, through
its technology, what parts should be extrapolated, to be given to
others that should have
access.
The next
question that arises has already been touched upon by my hon. Friend
the Member for Kettering: what will happen in terms of international
co-operation? Again, I would like to make it clear to the Minister that
I understand perfectly the good sense of sharing data on an
international basis with other agencies that may be designed to try to
prevent crime or terrorism. However, again the question arises about
what arrangements the Government have made to ensure the
confidentiality and the maintenance of confidentiality of the data.
Furthermore, will that international sharing of data include the
sharing of the entirety of the data or only such part of the data as
the Government consider necessary to fight crime and terrorism
specifically?
To
encapsulate it in a nutshell, are we going to allow all sorts of
foreign Governments and agencies to carry outI do not mean this
pejorativelyfishing expeditions into the entirety of the
material, or will we supply them with those things that can be
justified to the information commissioner on a frequent basis? I seek
clarification from the Minister on that.
It would be helpful if the
Minister provided a little more information, compatible with the needs
of national security, on how the information will be stored. Will it be
stored on a specific and dedicated computer system provided by the
Government, or
some existing computer system provided by them? Are the Government
satisfied that the information technology that is going to be applied
to the material is satisfactory and that it will be satisfactory for
the task?
Those points
conclude the main questions that I wished to ask on the matter, and I
hope that the Minister will respond to them in her winding-up speech.
Clearly, we should not minimise the colossal quantity of information
that we are dealing with. Given that a substantial percentage of the
population of the country travel, and that for that purpose we
routinely supply information that goes to the heart of personal
identity recognisers, including material that could be extremely
damaging to people if it falls into the wrong hands, the Committee and
the public will wish to be satisfied that the Government have adequate
systems in place to handle the material, and that they ensure that
confidentiality is maintained
throughout.
4.51
pm
Tom
Brake:
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. WilliamsI do not envisage that you will have any
problems with the Committee because I also support the order. Clearly,
data sharing is sensible when its purpose is to tackle serious crime
and terrorism. However, it requires adequate safeguards, and I have a
number of short questions for the Minister, some of which have been
touched on by the official Opposition spokesman.
Clearly, the technical solutions
for data encryption, file transfers and so on are probably not in place
at the moment. However, the Minister may have views about the
principles that should apply to those things so that we can have some
reassurance that the recent disasters of data going missing do not
re-occur with the database. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield set out
in his comments, the scale is such that the database and the management
of data have significant cost implications. Has the Minister assessed
what those might be?
The Minister referred to data
retention. Will she clarify how long the data will be held? Will the
data be held irrespective of whether they are used for a particular
purpose and whether they have been identified as being of security
value? Will the data be kept for seven years, which I believe might be
the retention period, irrespective of whether a journey was taken by
someone who subsequently proved to be of interest to the Government
from a security or other point of view?
I shall listen carefully to the
Minister, but I hope that either now or later in writing she may be
able to provide further clarification on those points. I shall await
her response, but I believe that it is a sensible order for us to
support, and we will do so if the need
arises.
4.54
pm
Meg
Hillier:
I can, I hope, answer all the points that hon.
Members raised. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield raised the issue of
the numbers involved. I was able to give the numbers for Operation
Semaphore today. Once the scheme under the order is fully rolled-out,
200 million passengers in 2006 will be covered, and 305 million by
2015. I cannot provide freight figures at the moment, but I shall write
to the
hon. Gentleman with that information. However, e-Borders covers every
movement within the EU, as I mentioned.
The hon. Member for Kettering
was particularly interested in the issue of data sharing outside our
borders, and that can be done on a case-by-case basis. There would be
normal co-operation with official security agencies if, for example, a
terrorist were crossing any border, as we would expect. That can take
place on a case-by-case basis, but no blanket dipping can be done by
the security agencies or police of other countries.
With regard to the comments made
by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield on data, the data will be filtered
by the agencies that have an interest, and they will alert another
agency that might also need to know about something so that
co-ordination can take place. With regard to data security, the system
will be a closed system and access control will be allowed only to
named and accredited individuals. Those activities are audited on a
rolling basis, but there can also be random auditing to ensure that
nothing else is done. To draw a parallel that is on a smaller scale and
easier for us to understand, I am also responsible for the UK Passport
Service, which uses random auditing to ensure that no member of staff
looks up the passport records of hon. Members or famous England
footballers, for example. It practises its own checks with secure
databases in government, and that is
important.
All three
border agencies have a joint data controller, so with regard to the
legal position the role is held jointly by the three agencies. I
mentioned international data sharing, and that is on a case-by-case
basis. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield was also concerned about
sharing data with third states. That does not fall within the scope of
the order, but clearly it happens and I mention it because it has been
raised by hon. Members. It takes place in the normal day-to-day
operations between countries when we are trying to deal with terrorist
concerns on a normal watch-list system, for example. It is open to the
UK Government to share that data when they consider it to be
appropriate, so long as it is in accordance with European law and UK
data protection law.
The hon. Member for Carshalton
and Wallington rightly raised the issue of costs, and I think that the
proposal represents good value for what it does and how it serves the
British public in protecting their safety. The total cost of the
programme is £1.486 million over 10 years from 2007the
programme started last year and will continue until 2017. The cost to
the Government is £1.224 million over that period of time; they
are paying 70 per cent. of the cost. I mentioned a specific figure for
carrier costs, but the global figure for carriers is £242
million over the same 10-year period, which includes the set-up and
running costs. I said that the average estimated costs per passenger
movement was 14p and mentioned the differential of 0.04p, but that can
range up to £6.31. That higher cost is for some carriers that do
not have up-to-date systems, but carriers are modernising their systems
as we speak, so it is expected that those figures will drop
considerably and that even that average will go
down.
I will touch on the length of
time that data are retained, which depends on the different agencies.
For e-Borders, data are retained for five years. The Borders and
Immigration Agency will keep its data for five years, but can hold it
longer on a case-by-case basis. If a case is still live because of
immigration issues, the data would obviously be held longer. Her
Majestys Revenue and Customs keeps data for five years, but can
hold it longer under certain circumstances, so long as they are
relevant. I should have said that the order does not apply to former
Inland Revenue information, but only to HMRC information. The police
are constrained in the length of time they hold data to a minimum of
six years, and there is a limitation Act on how long they can hold
certain information. If the information is needed for longer, it is
transferred to an individual agency and comes under its data protection
rules, so that it is on the basis of the shared information that can be
held for longer by individual organisations.
I am sorry, but I may have
inadvertently misled the Committee. In terms of the UK sharing data
with third countries, it can do so on a bulk basis. Case-by-case
matters relate to certain specific interventions. That may have been a
bit confusing for the Committee, but we can supply on a bulk basis.
Obviously there are still clear data protection rules that cover it, so
it must be for reasons of tackling terrorism and the other issues that
I have outlined.
Mr.
Hollobone:
If a UK citizen travels to the United States I
believe that it is a requirement for them to declare whether they have
been arrested in this country. Do Her Majestys Government
provide bulk data to the United States authorities about passengers who
have an arrest record in the United
Kingdom?
Meg
Hillier:
We are getting into slightly other territory
here. If there is a serious issue and somebody is wanted, that
information will be on a watch list. As far as I understand, routine
data, such as when a passport is swiped at US immigration control,
would not necessarily alert someone that a person had a criminal record
at any point in their life. It is not the case that everything a person
has ever done would be available to passport control. However, if there
were a concern at an immigration point, any immigration officer of any
national country could seek information about somebody. Therefore, if
there were some suspicion or a pattern of behaviour that was a cause
for concern there would be mechanisms for delving, but it would not be
on a routine basis.
It
is worth highlighting the impact of Operation SemaphoreI have
already highlighted some of the benefits. Currently Operation Semaphore
only covers 12 per cent. of all routes into and out of the UK. One in
2,200 passenger movements have been flagged for intervention, and one
in 12 of those has resulted in an arrest. The proposal to roll out
those measures to the other 88 per cent. of routes into and out of the
UK is important, but it is also proportionate in that only one in 12 of
those who are flagged are arrested.
Tom
Brake:
As the Minister is concluding her remarks, there
was one point on retention that I do not think she responded to. That
is whether the 305 million passenger records that the Government will
be loggingI cannot remember the exact datewill all be
retained for the five or six-year period that she has referred to,
irrespective of whether the movements were in any way
suspicious.
Meg
Hillier:
That is the case. In order to build up a pattern
of suspicious movement, one must keep that pattern of behaviour. I do
not wish to pick on the hon. Gentleman, but to illustrate the point,
suppose he were to travel to New York on a regular basis, and there
were some suspicion that at some point he was perhaps smuggling drugs,
it would be useful to know whether that had been the case three, four
or five years ago in order to build up that pattern of behaviour. If it
were immediately wiped, there would be no pattern of behaviour to build
up. We believe that it is proportionate to keep it for that length of
time. It only flags up if an issue arises. It is an enclosed and secure
database. I should stress that no information is downloaded to disk at
any stage. Information will be transferred on a secure
wire.
Mr.
Grieve:
I assume that the recording of the data will come
from the passenger information supplied to the carriers rather than
information being supplied to passport control when one goes through
passport control. Otherwise it sounds as though it will be a rather
laborious process, which might be rather time consuming. Could the
Minister confirm that
point?
Meg
Hillier:
I am happy to confirm that. We are already well
practised with this advanced passenger information. Sometimes people
are filtered out by airline liaison officers who are British Government
employees working abroad and helping airlines to screen passengers
before they arrive. They can pick people up at an early stage. Those
lists of people travelling on a particular aircraft, for example, would
arrive in the UK before the aircraft arrived if there were a particular
concern.
Under this
proposal, rather than having to screen the whole flight, because there
was a suggestion that someone might be travelling on a particular
route, we can hone down to the few passengers or perhaps an individual
passenger on that large flight who had an issue and deal with them on
arrival. Then there would be a flag at immigration control, but the aim
is not to slow down immigration controls. We are trying to ensure that
passengers can come through them with
ease.
There are also
safeguards to protect the privacy of individuals and individuals can
request the data that are held on them. The code of practice which is
issued under section 37 of the 2006 Act, which needs to be read
alongside the order, will regulate the handling and sharing of data
information under section 36, as I have mentioned. It sets out the
stringent safeguards that are in place to ensure compliance. It is
worth highlighting that point,
too.
The order is an
important tool to ensure that the Government can protect the British
public and other
citizens of the world from passengers who are travelling with malign
intent. It ensures what we believe is a proportionate response to that.
Most travellers will not even be aware that this is happening. We will
be able to catch the handful and target the relatively few people who
are intent on causing this country or others harm. It deserves to be
supported and I am delighted that all members of the Committee support
it this evening.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Immigration, Asylum and
Nationality Act 2006 (Duty to Share Information and Disclosure of
Information for Security Purposes) Order
2008.
Committee rose
at six minutes past Five
oclock.