Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) asked for the full list of offences to which the clause will relate. The formal answer is those under section 24(1)(a), (b), (c), (e) or (f), section 24A(1) and section 26(1)(c) or (d) of the Immigration Act 1971. In plain English, that means that the clause covers those who overstay or breach conditions of entry, enter illegally, obtain leave to enter by deception, knowingly enter the UK in breach of a deportation order without leave, abscond, or try to evade enforcement action.

Those are all immigration offences, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the idea of clause 100, which is the first of several clauses concerning information, is to keep the issue in proportion. Before lunch, we said clearly that no fishing expeditions are implied in clauses 100 to 106. They deal with information gateways, and to trigger the gateways, the Secretary of State must have a reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed a specified immigration offence. It is important that we can pursue information to catch up with such people.

The other side of the coin of having an immigration system that works well is the need to ensure that our system cracks down on those who have entered the UK illegally and on their opportunities to disappear into the system and evade the authorities. By definition, and speaking generally about the clause, that means that we want to share information without imposing burdens or starting fishing expeditions. We will deal with people's privacy in a way that allows us to put together information and then find and put pressure on those who harbour illegal workers or profit from them, whether from bonded labour or otherwise. If we do that, we will create a fair system for people entering the country and minimise the chances of those who have entered by deception continuing to profit by not bringing themselves to the attention of the authorities. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 304, in page 50, line 15, after 'section', insert 'through a named officer'.

Now that I am an old hand at this amendment-moving business, I want to speak to another probing amendment.

We need a prompt, efficient system that is far more effective than that which has operated in recent years at keeping track of and removing immigration offenders. The clause will allow the Secretary of State more easily to track down various applicants but it also constructs a system of surveillance and information exchange which would not look out of place in the old German Democratic Republic. We need to be mindful of three important factors so that the tracking system will not be open to abuse: it must be sensitive; it must be applied consistently and, perhaps most importantly, it must ensure absolute secrecy and confidentiality.

If the system is to encapsulate those three factors, it is vital that the information is provided to and through a named officer who is also suitably senior and qualified. Not only should the officer be specifically designated to reveal the information, but the method by which he or she gives out the information is extremely relevant and should be tightly controlled. Only last year, someone purporting to be the Leader of the Opposition managed, on the strength of a feeble impersonation, to get through the Downing street switchboard to the Prime Minister in his bedroom.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

Only on the phone.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

Yes—I did say through the switchboard.

If the information is to be transferred by telephone, there need to be strict procedures governing its release. Is it proposed that such communications will take place by telephone? Would it not be better for information to be passed by letter, fax or even e-mail? Such a system could easily be compromised by organised criminals or fraudsters tracking down the exact whereabouts of unwitting individuals. I hope that the Minister can assure us that that necessary information will be dealt with in a tight and well-ordered way, and that records will be kept so that if there is a miscarriage of justice or the system is abused, individuals are clearly accountable and the necessary safeguards to which I have alluded are in place.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister will know that the issue concerns the official Opposition and my party.

First, what is the collective response of local authorities to the proposal? Have they responded to the consultation and, if so, can we see that response? Some authorities must have concerns and it would be helpful to know whether they have responded only collectively—through the Association of London Government, the Local Government Association or similar organisations in Scotland and Northern Ireland—or whether there have there specific representations. Has there been any response from my local authority of Southwark, for example, or from the authorities of other members of the Committee?

Secondly, I agree that a named officer should deal with the information but I will be even more specific than the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker): it should be the chief executive's responsibility. This is a probing amendment, so it is proper to widen the debate. We are talking about people's liberties, their prospects of being arrested and taken away, and the exchange of information that might lead to that. Information should therefore be channelled through the chief executive.

One reason why that is an obvious suggestion is that it would be easier to determine accountability. Every local authority would have someone at the most senior level who knew the score and who could feed information to elected members of the local authority and to Members of Parliament. That individual would have the responsibility that would otherwise be given to an officer lodged in one department, when the issue was not one for a single department. It might be a housing issue, involving tenants. It might be an electoral registration issue, involving Commonwealth citizens who were here legally or illegally. If they were here legally, they might be entitled to go on the electoral register. It might be a social services issue. The chief executive, or someone holding an equivalent position, should therefore have that responsibility.

As I said, it would be helpful to know if an indicative or definitive list had been sent out which detailed the circumstances in which a local authority could request information. The Minister alluded to certain circumstances in the debate on the previous amendment.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, the Data Protection Act 1998 already provides the necessary safeguard by ensuring that any such data must be processed securely. It cannot be sent around willy-nilly for anyone to look at. We believe that most local authority requests will be made in writing, and, presumably, they will be complied with thereafter in writing. Records of requests made by the immigration authorities will be carefully kept. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that his worries are unfounded.

The Greater London Authority expressed concern about possible implications for social services and children, which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey echoed today. The power is limited to non-sensitive information, and would not be relevant for child protection or social services issues. It relates to the whereabouts of people about whom the Secretary of State has reasonable suspicion, and who fall into the categories of immigration offences which I mentioned during the debate on the Government amendment. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. No other local authority associations have made comments to date, but I suspect that the Bill's timetable has prevented them from making much detailed scrutiny. We are open to any representations that local authorities need to make.

The powers are similar to those in the Social Security Fraud Act 2001. They have operated well, and no onerous burdens have resulted from them. The hon. Gentleman needs to remember that we must have reasonable suspicion about an individual. We then seek their whereabouts by using information such as council tax or housing benefit details, which may be available from a local authority and may help us to apprehend sooner rather than later those people who have broken immigration rules. In most organisations, the data is regularly processed in legitimate circumstances at whatever level the authority decides. To place a burden on the chief executive is organisationally impractical and will make the daily use of the powers more difficult.

I ask the hon. Gentleman at least to acknowledge that the apprehension and deportation of immigration offenders is in the public interest, and that proportionate, tightly drawn powers, which do not allow fishing trips and whose use will be recorded by the immigration authorities, are an entirely legitimate response to some of the difficulties that we face with those who dodge immigration rules. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it two in a row and withdraw his amendment.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

This is a probing amendment, and I am reassured by some of the Minister's comments, but I still have a number of concerns. I am reassured that she reminded us of the test of reasonable suspicion and that the provision has only one purpose: to establish where a person is. I accept that both are perfectly valid limitations on the Secretary of State's power. It is also helpful to know that there has not yet been a response from local authorities. I hope that this debate will at least facilitate such a response, ideally through representative organisations, so that a view can be formed.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

The reason for the provision is merely to provide absolute clarity about the existence of the power. Currently, some local authorities respond well to requests for information, but the response from others can be patchy. That is partly because they are worried about whether they have the power to disclose the information, but in fact they are required to do so. As I said, the provision is about making the existence of the power much clearer, so that authorities do not worry that they are breaking other rules by complying with the requirements.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I understand that, but I am not sure whether the Bill is as narrowly drawn as the Minister said in relation to social services. I cannot remember the term that she used about the information.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

Non-sensitive.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

Yes, the Minister said that only non-sensitive information was relevant. I do not doubt that that is the intention, but I ask her to reconsider whether that is what the Bill says, because it does not appear to. Someone might say, ''One way of tracking down this family would be to go through the social

services records, because their children were taken into care.'' I do not question the hon. Lady's good faith, but I should be grateful if she would reconsider that issue later.

Interestingly, this part of the Bill does not contain a provision for similar powers in relation to the police. I assume that that is because there is already a power in statute to request information from the police. The Minister may comment on that. Clause 102, which relates to the police, deals with a power in respect of good character, not whereabouts.

I still disagree on the point about the officer. I understand the argument that was advanced, but I do not accept it. The officer might nominally be the chief executive and have someone else do the work. This is an important matter, because we may create a nonsensical situation in which information goes to different sorts of officers who, because of their authority, would not normally have access to it.

I assume that the Minister accepts the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle and I through the amendment: that a single named officer is a good idea. I do not think that she expressly said so. I urge her again, between now and Report stage, and after consultation with local government organisations, to reflect on whether it should not be the chief executive. I have one other general point, but I imagine that it should most properly be raised in the clause stand part debate, so I will leave it for now.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I fully support the intention behind the clause and I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she wants only to bring clarity to an existing modus operandi. However, in the interests of clarity, the discipline of having a named officer or officers would enhance the existing system and bring discipline to the operations of local government officers, which the Minister is clearly having trouble co-ordinating.

I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is right in thinking that the Minister is in favour of a named or several named officers. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that the chief executive is necessarily the most appropriate officer: over-burdening already severely pressed senior officials is the last thing we should do. Nevertheless, it is right for a specifically named officer—or, depending on the work load, officers—to have clear responsibility.

I hope that we can pin down more precisely the way in which the information will be given and transferred. The Minister has said that it should generally be in writing, but I hope for further clarification. I am grateful for the Minister's assurances and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)

I understand—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that nothing in the provisions changes the current responsibilities of local authorities under the Data Protection Act 1998. That Act makes a clear

distinction between sensitive personal data—affecting child protection, for example—and other data. Clear rules prescribe how the data can be processed, what can be done with it, by whom and in what circumstances. I want to be absolutely clear that nothing in the clause alters the current responsibilities of the chief executive, or of any officer in a local authority who handles personal data.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

The clause requires information to be supplied if the Home Secretary ''reasonably suspects''. Will the Minister tell us who judges whether the suspicion is reasonable? Is it the person who makes the request, or the person to whom the request is addressed?

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

It seems unlikely, but occasionally the names of people who have not been granted permanent leave to remain or who have not yet had their claim determined have appeared on the electoral register. Electoral register policy applies to British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens for all elections and to European Union nationals for local and European elections. Is it sufficient to appear on the electoral register—that information is held by local authorities—if a person is in the country irrespective of status, or is it a prerequisite to have an established status? It may seem an esoteric point, but many new people come on to the register every year in constituencies such as mine. We all believe that entitlement to vote should be a consequence of a person's lawful position in this country, so the electoral register should accurately reflect that. However difficult it is to monitor, what the law says is important.

This and subsequent clauses give considerable cause for concern, even with the data protection restrictions to which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) referred. My natural starting point is a concern that clause 100 and the subsequent clauses relating to the Inland Revenue, the police, medical inspectors, employers and financial institutions create additional powers for the Home Office to seek information on people from other agencies.

It is important that Parliament takes the view that obtaining and passing information between agencies and organisations should be the exception rather than the rule. It should be permitted only when there is justified good cause, and in such a way that the person to whom the information relates is able to track what it is, where it is and to whom it is passed, and is able to access it at any time, even if it is something he is not keen to know about.

If the local authority passes information to the Secretary of State under this provision, it is a basic prerequisite that the individual should be entitled to know what information was passed, as a safeguard to ensure the preservation of confidentiality. Only those qualified to give and receive information should do so to ensure that the information given and sought is only that which is necessary for the purpose. As the Minister rightly said, there should not be a fishing expedition.

More and more powers are being given to Government by Home Office legislation—including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the data protection and freedom of information legislation—to obtain information, which may be used for good causes such as crime prevention and deterring terrorism. The supplying of such information needs to be carefully regulated and scrutinised, and should always be justified and accountable. Subject to the data protection legislation, what are the mechanisms for individuals to make sure that the information transferred is only the minimum necessary and only that which is sought? What guarantees are there that the individual knows what is being done with information held on him?

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's fears, but he is making heavy weather of the issue. The power is specific and limited. I confirm that the powers conferred in subsequent clauses do not change responsibilities under the Data Protection Act for local authorities or the authorities that we will be discussing later, or compromise them in any way. The Data Protection Act continues to govern the type of information that can be held and the way in which it can be handed over.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow is right to say that the Act deals differently with non-sensitive and sensitive information. The clause deals with non-sensitive information that can confirm the whereabouts of a person whom the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe is an immigration offender, who would be subject to deportation if he were discovered, and who may be working illegally and involved in other nefarious activities that it would be in the public interest to stop.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey worries about the disclosure of such information. Within the narrow limits set by the clauses, its sharing and disclosure is in the public interest, with all the qualifications that I have set out. The hon. Gentleman should remember that such disclosures are legitimate if they comply with section 29 of the Data Protection Act, which facilitates disclosures for the prevention and detection of crime. That is what we are talking about. These are not sweeping powers that enable the immigration authorities to go on fishing expeditions. There has to be a reasonable suspicion that a named individual is an immigration offender before information about him can be sought from any of the authorities that we will be discussing in the next few clauses.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) asked about reasonableness. The reasonable belief has to be in the mind of the Secretary of State or those working in his stead--in this instance, the immigration authorities. It is not for local authorities or any of the other authorities to second-guess the reasonableness argument. They already have a duty, which these

clauses qualify, to disclose information in those circumstances if asked to do so. The clauses clarify that they have that requirement.

I was not certain what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was getting at when he talked about the electoral register. It would certainly be an offence for immigration offenders to be on the electoral register. The immigration service already has access to the electoral register when making inquiries: that is the first place it would go. It does not have to go to local authorities or any of those other organisations to check the electoral register. As far as I know it is a public document. We can all check it. The hon. Gentleman can get a CD-ROM of it and do all sorts of clever things with the information that he gets from it. We do not have to legislate to require that information to be shared, as it is in the public domain already.

I hope that the Committee will realise that nothing in the clause compromises the protections under the Data Protection Act. It is a necessary but focused power. A similar power has already been extended to deal with social security fraud, and it qualifies under section 29 of the Data Protection Act, because it is sought for the prevention and detection of crime. I hope that the Committee will be happy to allow that clarification, which will improve the effectiveness of the work that the immigration authorities do to combat overstaying, illegal working and immigration crime.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 100, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

On a point of order, Mr. Hurst. I thank the Minister for the letter that has been sent to you, your co-Chairman and members of the Committee about Government amendments and new clauses. However, I want to register a protest about the fact that some of the amendments were tabled only today. My understanding of the Minister's undertaking to the Committee last week was that the amendments would be tabled on Tuesday. A number of Government amendments were tabled then, but two further starred amendments appeared today, including one relating to legal processes and leave for appeal. I should be grateful for an explanation of why they were not tabled with the others. It looks a bit odd for one of the most controversial amendments to appear two days later. Can we have an assurance that no more amendments are planned in Committee, and that these are all the amendments that will be tabled on the clauses that we have specifically put back to the end of the Committee to give us time to consider them?

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman will know, that is not a point of order for the Chair. It is up to the Minister whether she wishes to reply.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I do not wish to detain the Committee. Some amendments were tabled later than we had hoped. That was not deliberate, but a matter of necessity. They concern a complex area of law, and

had to be right before they were tabled. I apologise to the Committee for their late arrival—it shows that it was wise that the Programming Sub-Committee agreed to my suggestion to have an extra day. We tabled them as quickly as possible for the convenience of the Committee but, regrettably, practicalities sometimes intervene.