Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 55, 57, 59, 60 and 61, tabled in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his support on Amendment No. 57. Even if we were on the Floor of the House these would be probing amendments. They raise issues about sharing information. We do not object to those provisions. We recognise that in the changed world in which we live there may be some good reasons for such measures, so these amendments probe the operation of the system. Clause 32 provides powers for the police to acquire information in respect of ships and aircraft arriving in—or at least expected to arrive—or leaving the UK. A duty is placed on passengers and crew to provide the owner or agent of a ship or aircraft with any information that he requires so that he can then comply with any requirement placed upon him by the police to provide them with information. Subsection (6) states that the requirement to provide information must be made in writing and can apply for a maximum period of six months, and that the period must be specified. Amendment No. 55 would permit information required by a constable to be provided orally rather than in writing, provided there is the backup that it is confirmed within 48 hours. We wonder where the harm might be in providing that flexibility. Amendment No. 57 would limit the time for which a requirement to provide information remains in force from six months to one month. That amendment has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Amendment No. 59 suggests that a breach of Clause 31 as well as the breach of Clause 32 should be an offence. As the Bill stands, we cannot see that breaching Clause 31 by not providing information to an immigration officer is an offence. Why is that? Amendment No. 60 would strengthen the provision on the disclosure of information for security purposes so that a person ““shall”” rather than just ““may”” disclose information. Amendment No. 61 would reduce the test to one of thinking that the information ““may”” rather than ““is likely to”” be of use for a specified purpose. When these amendments were moved in another place by my honourable friend Mr Humfrey Malins, on Report on 16 November, pressure of lack of time meant that he agreed to let the Minister respond by way of letter. I have willingly offered the Government the opportunity to respond by way of letter to me today as we are at Committee stage. I then have the opportunity to table amendments later if I think it appropriate. The difficulty for my honourable friend in another place is that he had no choice other than to offer a letter, not only because of lack of time on Report, but also because in another place there is no further stage; there is no equivalent to our Third Reading. He had no further opportunity to take the matter forward or, indeed, have the Minister respond on the record. Certainly, although I know the Minister promised to respond in a letter, I think it would be useful if the Minister today could put on the record the Government’s reflection on these issues and make clear whether their response is the same as it might have been then. What that response was we know not, but we may find out now. I hope that we can reflect on the Minister’s reply and consider whether it might be necessary to respond to any matters. I suspect that just Amendment No. 57 will require further elucidation. I look forward to the response.