Clause 24 - Attendance for fingerprinting
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
11:00 am
Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
On the face of it, the clause looks pretty straightforward, but I hope that the stand part debate will give me an opportunity to probe the Minister because its effect is to move the goalposts for a certain category of person. At present, under section 142 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, people who are required to be fingerprinted are allowed to have notice of at least seven days in which to attend and, further, that period cannot begin until at least seven days have passed since the date of the notice. However, the amendment will apply to a certain category—namely asylum seekers and their dependants—and reduce that timing to three days. I want to probe the Government’s intention in seeking to amend the clause on those lines and to raise a couple of the difficulties that might arise from it, chiefly to discover the thinking behind the proposed changes.
The people for whom it is proposed that three days rather than seven will apply are those who have sought recognition as a refugee or asserted that their removal would breach their rights under article 3 of the European convention on human rights, and it includes their dependants. Why is the change proposed and why only in respect of that category of person? What evidence is there that it will make such a difference? Will it truly give the Government the advantage that has merited adding a clause? The logical question stemming from that is: why three days? Why not 24 hours or four days? Is there some magic about the time scale, because three days will cause problems?
What will happen if a person can prove that the notice did not reach him or her until after the date on which that person was required to attend? Sadly, we are all familiar with our postal system, which has deteriorated under the Labour Government. In the old days I could guarantee that the first post would arrive first thing in the morning and the second post in the afternoon, but now I cannot guarantee that it will arrive at any time during the day. If the notice was delayed in the post, for example, what would the situation be? Three days is a very short time.
These are not people that we have tagged or tied down in chains. What would happen if they were temporarily absent from their accommodation for a couple of nights, and therefore did not comply with this new and arduous time limit?
Moreover, if these people are required to travel, which might be the case, what if they do not have the wherewithal to travel to that destination? As I understand it, the consequences of failure to comply with the provisions are that, under section 142(3) of the 1999 Act, they can be arrested without a warrant. I hope that the Minister will respond to those pertinent questions.
The fundamental question is why there is a difference. Why pick out this category? I hope that the Minister, in his response, will give a rational and suitable explanation.
I shall now move away from the three days’ timing and the notice delivery and what may cause a person to fail to comply, to the requirement that a person attend at a specified time of day or a specified hour. The proposal to shorten notice periods and give fixed times will run the risk of more missed appointments and perhaps more wasted time. We are all familiar with our GPs complaining when people do not turn up. If people are forced into a straitjacket, it will increase the risk that they will not be able to comply with the conditions that have been placed on them.
While I am on the subject of fingerprinting and this clause, will the Minister examine the wording that has been used in the drafting of the legislation? In proposed new subsection (2) the wording is
“must require him to attend”
and in (2A) it is
“may require him to attend.”
Could attendance not be by arrangement and by mutual agreement? Why must there be that dominant relationship in which an order is barked out to someone to attend? Why could attendance not be by mutual arrangement and agreement, rather than being a requirement, as currently drafted?
I am also sad to see that there is a lacuna in respect of fingerprinting. I hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that appropriate personnel will be used to take the fingerprints. For example, a friend of mine, who is a devout Muslim, would not even shake my hand because I am a lady. That is understandable: it is his culture. Will the Minister reassure me that if there was an issue of culture, particularly in relation to this vulnerable group of people, there would be no repercussions and no insistence that the fingerprinting was carried out by someone inappropriate? Receiving the Minister’s reassurance on that matter during our discussion of the Bill would stand us in good stead.
I do not think that I look like a person who will be troublesome to any jurisdiction in which I travel. However, this summer, without any notice or warning whatever, when I was merely travelling through the United States of America, I had to be fingerprinted for the first time in my life. The Minister is looking at me with wide-eyed youth on his side. I do not know whether he has ever been fingerprinted. I had never been fingerprinted before in my life, but I did not require three or seven days’ notice. It was just done as a matter of course. Naturally, as a law-abiding citizen and wanting to facilitate my very swift passage through the United States of America, I raised no objections. But interestingly, my husband, who is a senior citizen—I do not think he would mind my saying that—also had to be fingerprinted. That was a bit of a shock to his system. But even he admitted that because it was required and because it was supposed to add to our safety and security, he would not put up a fight when he had to press his fingers on to the pad.
However, I want to know whether down the line the Minister is planning to fingerprint everybody and if not, why not. Are we not going to a halfway house here without facing the reality? Home Office officials have helpfully produced a number of impact assessments to go with the Bill. I should like to refer to the partial regulatory impact assessment on data capture and sharing powers for the border agencies. I know that the Minister will be familiar with everything in that document. His hon. Friends may laugh, but the Minister is in command of his brief and he will be familiar with everything in it.
According to that document, one of the purposes and intended effects of all these new provisions is to maintain
“an accurate movement record of passengers travelling to and departing from the UK, in support of further border control functions, including risk analysis and detecting those who have no right to be in the UK and assist in the fight against terrorists and criminals.”
The phrase
“travelling to and departing from the UK”
suggests to me that down the line we will have fingerprinting in line with what is happening in the US. I would particularly like the Minister to comment on that and on the last page of that impact assessment. Paragraph 19, entitled “Competition assessment”, states:
“All other EU Member States plan to verify identity of persons crossing their borders with biometrically enabled documents. Many other countries either already use biometrics as a key element of their border control (USA, Hong Kong, Singapore for example) or plan to do so.”
Once again, that looks as if this is only a halfway house and more is coming down the road, certainly to bring us in line with other EU member states. I should like the Minister to share his thinking on this.
My final point relates to costs. I have tried to familiarise myself with the impact assessments as best I can. The document on data capture and sharing powers deals with various areas of the financial impact, such as the potential obsolescence of landing cards and other manual processes which will provide a cost saving. Another part of the document allows for the redeployment of otiose Home Office staff who would be redeployed into this area too. Could the Minister give us some idea what the costs are for this area and what the cost savings might be in other areas by moving to a more reliable and secure system? Once again, is this a halfway house before we move fully down the road to full fingerprinting and biometric details of everyone coming in and out of our country?