| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
On affordability, the noble Baroness will be aware that small and medium enterprises are entitled to recover 104.5 per cent of statutory maternity pay from the state. In the terms of employment, if they choose to give further maternity pay, they will be considering their own affordability issues.
The noble Lord raised an interesting question, which also came up in another place in yesterday’s debate. The Minister responsible for employment essentially said that there was a legitimate debate to be had about flexibility in paternity leave. It is important to recognise that maternal leave is set out in this way because the health of the mother is a factor, particularly in the early period after her baby is born, but adoption leave can be taken by either parent because that is not relevant. There is a debate to be had about the flexibility of maternity leave after a certain time. We also have to consider predictability for employers and their legitimate interest in this. Therefore, in 2006 the Government extended notice periods to support businesses in this matter.
I hope that that answers the questions that I was asked. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Immigration (Supply of Information to the Secretary of State for Immigration Purposes) Order 2008
4.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead) rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Immigration (Supply of Information to the Secretary of State for Immigration Purposes) Order 2008.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 created a statutory gateway that enables the police, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and those accommodating UK Border Agency-supported asylum seekers to supply information to the Home Office for specified immigration purposes. Section 20 also provides an enabling power, subject to close scrutiny in this House and in the other place, to extend this list of bodies and the circumstances in which information may be shared.
16 July 2008 : Column GC118
Today, to improve further the sharing of information between government departments and the UK Border Agency, we are seeking to include the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in respect of social security information, and the chief constable of the British Transport Police in this gateway.
The order provides that certain information held by these departments and organisations may be supplied to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for use for immigration purposes as defined in Section 20(3) of the Act. It also extends the definition of immigration purposes to cover two additional UK Border Agency functions in relation to individuals in receipt of asylum support under Section 4 of the 1999 Act and those individuals who may have civil penalties imposed under Section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.
There are currently no statutory powers for the Department for Work and Pensions, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency or the British Transport Police to supply information held in pursuance of their functions to the UK Border Agency for use for immigration purposes. These departments currently rely on common-law powers to share such information with the UK Border Agency to exercise immigration functions and to investigate criminal activity.
It is right that staff working in government departments should be clear as to the limits of their administrative powers under the law and the extent to which information-sharing with other departments is permitted. Given the increasing importance of information that these bodies supply for immigration functions and the increase in the volume of information the UK Border Agency requires, including via electronic format, we felt it prudent and timely to make an order setting out a clear legislative basis for the supply of this information.
This information will be used by the UK Border Agency to locate and remove immigration offenders, ensure compliance with existing immigration laws, including the checking of applications under the new points-based system, and prevent abuse of the asylum support benefit system. The UK Border Agency is forging closer partnerships with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions as part of its enforcement strategy Enforcing the Deal, which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary published on 19 June.
The order is crucial to enabling this work to proceed. It will allow the UK Border Agency to carry out more effective checks with the Department for Work and Pensions when applying the Immigration Rules that set down the criteria for entry and stay in this country. When a person is subject to a requirement that they do not claim benefits as a condition of entering and remaining here, the UK Border Agency will be able to check with the Department for Work and Pensions whether they have been truthful in their application.
The order will also enable us to take forward the review of migrants’ access to UK driving licences. Driving licences are used for many purposes, including demonstrating identity and address for the purpose of
16 July 2008 : Column GC119
We want to work with the Department for Transport and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to see how we can tighten up further the already stringent checks carried out on applicants by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. That includes strengthening the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency’s legal power to share data with the UK Border Agency. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the British Transport Police are included for law enforcement purposes.
It is important to note that the power to supply information under Section 20 simply provides a statutory gateway under which information may be shared. The new power does not abrogate the need to comply with the important safeguards in the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Government take the protection of personal information very seriously. The departments involved have all reviewed the handling of personal data and implemented enhanced procedures following publication of the Cabinet Office interim report on the data-handling review in December 2007. They have continued to make improvements and are committed to implementing the Cabinet Office mandatory requirements, which were published in March and are referenced in the final report.
A number of initiatives have already been put in place to protect personal data within the Home Office, including the appointment of a senior information risk owner, and the issuing of new guidelines on taking information out of secure areas, including restricting the use of non-encrypted laptops and removable media. Any information shared under this new power and under existing powers will be shared securely in line with the recommendations of the Cabinet Office review. That is what the order seeks to achieve and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Immigration (Supply of Information to the Secretary of State for Immigration Purposes) Order 2008. 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord West of Spithead.)
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive explanation of the measure. The Official Opposition do not object in principle to the Secretary of State being given as much information as is legally held that might help in ensuring our immigration laws are upheld and enforced. It is clear that the information which can be supplied by the wider spread of the network of the DWP, the DVLA, the MCA and the British Transport Police can in certain circumstances add to the effectiveness of the UK Border Agency, which must surely be a cause for all-party support.
I am grateful to the Minister for amplifying particularly the question of driving licences, which he rightly recognises as one of the key identification documents. The Minister in the other place yesterday gave some idea of the numbers and the progress being made. If he can give any further details of that, it would be helpful to the Committee.
16 July 2008 : Column GC120
My other point has been gone over many times during the past year. It is clear that the transfer of data between holding authorities is not without its hazards, as has been painfully shown. Once data leave a department, which will have its own security in place—I am obliged to the Minister for confirming that those procedures are being tightened up—they must by the very circumstances of the migration be potentially less secure. Your Lordships will be aware that the Information Commissioner has been highly critical in his latest reports of two departments in particular. The Cabinet Secretary was yesterday asked some fairly direct questions by the committee and gave assurances which the Minister has echoed today. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation and his assurance that the problem is being addressed with the greatest urgency.
Lord Avebury: I totally agree with the noble Viscount. The problem is security in transferring the information. We do not object to the order or to the use of the information specified in it but, in view of the history on this matter, we think that your Lordships should be doubly careful to scrutinise the methods by which the transfer of information is to be achieved. The Minister mentioned that it would comply fully with the recommendations in the Cabinet Office review of December 2007. He also referred to the appointment of a senior information risk owner, which I must say was news to me, but very welcome. I should like to know what the exact functions of this official are and whether reports will be made to Parliament on his assessment of the risks involved, particularly in the transfer of information. I am also grateful for the Minister’s assurances that all the powers in this order will be exercised in full compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act. Presumably, under the Data Protection Act there will be oversight of the procedures involved.
The note on the order says that there were no specific consultations on it, and I wonder why that was. Surely, particularly on the risks involved in the transfer of information from one department to another, competent technical advice would have been available from, for example, the professional computer bodies. I noted what the Minister said about the use of non-encrypted laptops, which in the past have been the occasion for the disappearance and theft of information on a large scale. Can he assure us that no information of the kind dealt with in the order will be on unencrypted laptops? I should have thought that where a transfer of information took place between, for example, the Department for Transport, the DVLA and the Home Office, it would be done electronically over a secure link and that that would be the only possible method by which this kind of information could be transmitted from one department to another. If there are exceptions to that and information is put on to a disk or a CD or used on a laptop, I think we should know about that. We should also know what safeguards will be considered by the senior information risk owner to ensure that the information does not go astray.
Lord West of Spithead: I thank noble Lords for their support for this measure. Both noble Lords raised the issue of data protection. They are absolutely
16 July 2008 : Column GC121
The noble Lord asked a specific question about the sharing of data. The DVLA shared information on 1,172 cases in 2007-08—effectively over the past financial year—for the purposes of verifying immigration status. Of those, 489 were fraudulent applications, and that shows the value of this sort of check. The scale of the problem and the fact that it is becoming more widespread means that we need this measure. We need to put things on a more formal basis so that those in administration and others understand where they stand, what the rules are and what has to apply.
The senior information risk officer will report to Parliament, but I will have to write with more detail on this. It is a move in the right direction and will add to existing safeguards.
I am not sure exactly what the specific consultations were. Perhaps I can get back to the noble Lord in writing on that point.
I think we are all agreed that data protection is very important. These data are crucial in countering fraud, crime and illegal immigration. We have to look after them properly as we have to use them and hold them. This is an issue not only for government but also for private firms that are increasingly holding all sorts of data. This is a very important issue, and I am glad that it was raised.
The information will be shared securely and will generally be passed online. If it were not, I would be very surprised, but I will make certain and let the noble Lord know in writing if it is not on an encrypted laptop. There may be occasions when it is not possible to send it online, which I imagine is when that will happen, but I will check the position and get back to the noble Lord in writing.
Lord Avebury: I cannot imagine any case in which it would be impossible to send the data over the internet on an encrypted link as opposed to passing them physically via a laptop, CD or some other hard medium. I am not asking for a reply now but I should be grateful if the noble Lord could drop me a line. The exceptions to that rule should be minimised and, if possible, there should be a rule that no data are passed in hard form if that can be avoided.
Lord West of Spithead: I agree that generally it would be very unusual to do that. I do not think that we would put any of these data on disks. Indeed, with
16 July 2008 : Column GC122
I misread something earlier and will get back to the noble Lord in writing regarding the senior information officer, as it is not clear that he will report to Parliament.
As I have said, all information under the new power will be shared securely in line with all the recommendations of the Cabinet Office review. I commend the order to the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Civil Penalty Code of Practice) Order 2008
5.03 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead) rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Civil Penalty Code of Practice) Order 2008.
The noble Lord said: I shall take the two measures together. The UK Borders Act 2007 introduced powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations to issue identity cards to foreign nationals who are subject to immigration control. The order and the regulations will enable the UK Border Agency to do that. They are intended to enable the introduction of the first identity cards to be issued to foreign nationals, subject to immigration control, who are staying in the United Kingdom for more than six months.
The first identity cards will be issued from 25 November 2008 to those who are granted limited leave to remain as certain types of students and those who are granted limited leave to remain as spouses, civil partners or unmarried couples under the Immigration Rules. The cards will confirm the holder’s immigration status and entitlements to work and to access public funds in the United Kingdom. The identity card will provide foreign nationals who are subject to immigration control with a secure and reliable immigration document. To achieve this, we need to make regulations under the biometric registration powers contained in the UK Borders Act 2007, allowing the UK Border Agency to enrol biometric features. These will be a photograph and 10 fingerprints. Taking the person’s fingerprints will enable us to fix a person to a single identity and make it possible to verify that identity against centrally held records. At present, around 50 different documents are issued to foreign nationals granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; I have to say that I was rather surprised by that. This makes it difficult for employers and service providers to check whether a person is entitled to work in the UK before they give them a job or allow them to access public funds.
Identity cards are designed to make it easier for foreign nationals to demonstrate that they are entitled to live and work in the UK. We consider this essential as part of our efforts to tackle illegal working and
16 July 2008 : Column GC123
The identity cards will be credit-card sized and will contain the holder’s unique biometric features, including a photograph and two fingerprints. On the face of the card will be the holder’s photograph and his biographical information, including his name, immigration status, nationality, date and place of birth, and gender. This information will also be stored in a secure embedded microchip, along with the two fingerprints. I have a copy of such a card here, which noble Lords can look at afterwards. I do not think that it is for any specific person. No, it is not.
In April this year, noble Lords kindly approved the Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Pilot) Regulations 2008, which enabled the UK Border Agency to test the biometric enrolment processes and technologies by registering the fingerprints and photographs of a small group of foreign nationals applying for leave to remain. The pilot started on 28 April and since that date noble Lords may be interested to learn that we have enrolled more than 7,500 biometric records and had around 2,000 responses to our applicant survey, with the vast majority of responses being positive.
The pilot enrolment processes and technologies are operating smoothly. Given our experiences with the pilot so far, we expect the technologies and our processes to continue to deliver our business needs when we start to issue identity cards from the end of November 2008. Identity cards are being rolled out incrementally, starting with applicants granted limited leave to remain in certain types of student categories and as spouses, civil partners or unmarried couples under the Immigration Rules. We selected these two categories based on risk and efficiency.
Those who are required to register their biometric identifiers will be able to enrol them at any one of the network of offices around the UK. From November 2008, there will be at least six enrolment venues sited across the country, including locations in Birmingham, Cardiff, Croydon, Glasgow, Liverpool and Sheffield. An additional centre will come on line in the following months in Northern Ireland.
Foreign nationals whose applications are successful will be issued with an identity card that will serve as their document granting them leave. We will not place any vignettes, stickers or stamps within the applicant’s passport.
I shall briefly set out to your Lordships the main differences between these regulations and the pilot regulations. These regulations will apply to foreign nationals in the specified student or family categories making an application from anywhere in the UK, unlike the pilot, which applied only to those making “in person” applications at the Croydon Public Enquiry Office or, if applying for leave by post, those living within a London postcode address. Obligations will be placed on identity card holders to notify the Secretary of State when their circumstances change and to apply for a replacement card in situations when it is cancelled.
16 July 2008 : Column GC124
We need to define the circumstances when we will require the identity cards for foreign nationals to be used. These regulations impose requirements on holders of the identity cards to provide their cards as part of an immigration process or procedure, where the holder attends a centre to take the “Life in the UK” test and to provide them to an employer. We are also introducing two additional sanctions, which were excluded from the biometric registration pilot. These are a power to curtail or cancel leave and a power to issue a civil penalty notice against persons who fail to comply with the requirements included in these regulations. The bulk of the regulations were developed from the earlier biometric registration pilot regulations. I am happy to answer specific questions about them if Members of the Committee wish to discuss such issues.
The order will bring into force the draft code of practice concerning the sanctions for non-compliance with the biometric registration regulations, which was laid before Parliament on 11 June 2008. The code sets out how the sanctions, which the Secretary of State may impose, will be applied to those who fail to comply with requirements of the biometric registration regulations. An early version of the draft code was published in February 2008 and we consulted the public about its contents. The version before the Committee reflects many of the helpful comments made as part of the consultation process.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |