Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Begg, on this important Bill.

Amendment 9 would prevent a designated customs official from using the personal data of a United Kingdom citizen to restrict that citizen’s right to enter or leave the UK where there is an apparently legitimate purpose for the journey. In other words, the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford probes the circumstances under which UK Border Agency officials could stop a legitimate journey by a UK citizen, and the nature of the information that could be used to apprehend or inspect a person.

The provision is an essential tool in support of law enforcement and is key to the agency being able to secure the optimal deployment of its resources across all of its functions. However, the hon. Gentleman may be reassured to know that the provision is subject to any restriction or prohibition on the disclosure of information imposed in part 1 or in any other enactment or agreement to which the UK is party. Those restrictions and prohibitions will be particularly important for personal customs information.

Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I would like a little more clarification on the circumstances in which action could be taken. One can clearly understand the case of a terrorist to which the Minister referred, but what level of offence is covered by the provision? Is non-payment of a parking fine something that might lead to action? Will he clarify the level at which the provision will be enforced?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, which was also made in the other place. The information to which I refer is customs information, but he refers to a wider point, which is very valid but is outside the clause’s scope, relating to information from watch lists activity. Parking or speeding offences are certainly not covered, otherwise I imagine that the immigration Minister would be in serious trouble at this point in time—although perhaps not at another point in time. More seriously,  the watch lists relate to the criminal watch lists from our security forces, but they do not relate to the aspect of information under discussion. The hon. Gentleman’s point is valid, but it is not directly relevant.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

Welcome to the Chair, Miss Begg. I would like to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. It is ironic that he used the example of parking fines. Perhaps he, like me, has spent part of the past couple of hours looking at the ID card statutory instruments that we will debate next week in which the Department for Transport is specifically mentioned as one of the Departments that, if the provisions are passed, will be able to use information from ID cards for its own purposes. The Minister is right that the hon. Gentleman’s point may not be directly relevant to amendment 9, but the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is spot on that the Government plan to collect private information about people and then use it to perhaps enforce things such as parking fines. I suspect that the Minister and I will conduct that debate next week.

The Minister has sought to reassure me about clause 14. I should point out, again in relation to the intervention by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, that amendment 9 specifically mentions

“officers designated under this Part to use any personal data of UK citizens”,

so the clause does not cover customs information only. Just before lunch, the Minister said that he felt my argument had a weakness because it suggested that the police could not be engaged by immigration officers. If we had not been interrupted, I would have replied that he was making an ideal argument for a unified border police force. In the case he specifically advanced of an anti-terrorist operation the police would be involved and therefore the powers would be police powers. At that point, his argument falls, inasmuch as it has validity; it is precisely an argument for a border police and for those police powers and all the police training to be available to a wider set of officers than is currently the case.

As we have said several times over the course of day, this is a debate for another time later in Committee. I am not entirely convinced and reassured by the Minister’s arguments. The powers given for using and disclosing information in this clause are potentially dangerous. Not unfairly, he pointed to other clauses where there is a prohibition on disclosure of personal customs information—for example, the next clause that we will discuss. Nevertheless, many of those are hedged around with restrictions, for instance in clause 17, that the information cannot be disclosed

“without the consent of a relevant official (which may be general or specific)”.

The intent that there can be a general permission for the disclosure and use of private information infuses a lot of the Bill. That is dangerous. We will return to similar issues, especially consent, when we discuss the next group of amendments. Although I will not withdraw the arguments that lie behind it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.