Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I wish to ask some questions on the drafting of both the Government’s proposed sub-paragraph (5) in Clause 27 and Amendment No. 52, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which he seeks to substitute for that sub-paragraph. I apologise for raising an issue now that occurred to me only during our debates in the Chamber yesterday on the Identity Cards Bill. Had I realised before, I certainly would have sought to address the matter in an amendment, but the wording about which I wish to pose questions arises in this sub-paragraph. I would be happy for the Minister not to answer my questions today but I would welcome a letter from her, so that I might properly consider the matter between now and Report. I thought it was right to put that on the record, because noble Lords who have attended these proceedings so assiduously need to be aware of my questions. The Government may have answers ready but they may well wish to reflect on them. My questions relate to how the Government have defined those matters which will comprise the identification of a person. I appreciate that in proposed sub-paragraph (5) the Government are trying to provide an alignment with the Identity Cards Bill. In our debates on that Bill we have sought from the Government an assurance at the Dispatch Box that any identification defined as in sub-paragraph (5) could not be construed to include DNA, that that could not come within the definition of external characteristics, and that if any future government decided that it would be right for them to attempt to introduce DNA as identification, there should be a proper method of putting that clearly into a Bill—preferably by primary legislation, but it may well be by a proper process of affirmative order. Can the Minister give an assurance at the Dispatch Box that the definition of ““external physical characteristics”” here could not in any way today comprise DNA and that the Government would not be permitted by the Bill to introduce DNA as an identifier in future? My second question is more prosaic and relates to the definition of ““fingerprints””, mentioned towards the end of the sub-paragraph. Looking through the Bill in haste this morning I may have missed something, and if so, I apologise. As far as I can see, there is no definition of ““fingerprints”” in the Bill, and many people would say, ““So what? We know what fingerprints are””. But it has been thought necessary in the Identity Cards Bill to define fingerprints, I assume, because the identifier will be the new biometric fingerprint, so a belt-and-braces approach has been adopted. I notice that Clause 43(1) of the Identity Cards Bill defines ““fingerprint””. It states:"““in relation to an individual, means a record (in any form and produced by any method) of the skin pattern and other physical characteristics or features of any of his fingers””." Have I missed the definition in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill? If so, I apologise. If it is not in there, will the Minister take advice on whether it should be there, and if not, why not, when it is in the Identity Cards Bill? Could she set my mind at rest on that? I would certainly be happy to receive a letter between now and Report if she felt that that was a better way of dealing with the matter?