§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 207.
§ Mr. AllanAmendment No. 73 deals with registration cards, which are to be issued to all asylum seekers. We understand that that work has already commenced. We expressed concerns about this in Committee; Liberal Democrat Members have concerns about registration cards in the wider sense, and we sought assurances that they would be restricted to specific purposes to do with asylum and immigration.
943 The amendment would prevent the Home Secretary from being able to extend the use of registration cards, even into areas of immigration, through secondary legislation. We remain concerned, as we were in Committee, about the possible extension of registration cards without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
8.30 pm
We understood from the Minister's comments in Committee that the initial intention was to limit the card to asylum seekers. Indeed, clause 121(1)(b) is specific about the card being
issued…in connection with a claim for asylum".We suggested in Committee that if the Government's intention was simply to extend the cards for immigration purposes, it would be better to spell that out in the Bill. The Government have not made any consequential changes and we are left, therefore, with a clause that clearly deals with registration cards for asylum seekers.We understood the reason for that and the logic behind it—moving from the voucher system towards a system under which benefits could be claimed. Our understanding is that the cards are really entitlement cards and will be of advantage to the individuals who hold them. That is our general approach to the use of registration or identity cards—they are something that can benefit the individual, which justifies their introduction. On the face of it, however, the clause is saying, "Let us have registration cards for asylum seekers", but subsection (7) will leave the way open to the Secretary of State to
by order…amend the definition of 'registration card'".The Bill is called the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill and it deals with different categories of people. Asylum seekers are a small and well defined category. In Committee, it was certainly suggested that the amendment envisaged in subsection (7) might mean the inclusion of a broader category of immigration applicant. All people who have immigration business would be a much wider category than asylum seekers—all those with nationality business are a wider category again. Our concern remains that we do not want a provision for asylum seekers to be extended to those broader categories without further parliamentary scrutiny.The Bill without the amendment, which would remove the order-making powers, leaves far too much discretion to the Secretary of State to extend the requirement for individuals to carry registration cards. We want further assurances from the Government. In particular, we seek an assurance that they intend further to define the registration card in a manner that will parallel the present definition, rather than leaving us with the definition in the Bill—that the card is for purposes connected with asylum, but with a get-out clause that would allow the Secretary of State to rewrite the provision and say that it is for purposes x, y and z without further defining what those are, other than that they must be generally within the immigration field. We hope that the Government do not intend to leave the legislation like that and we seek further information from the Minister as to what their intentions are.
§ Ms Rosie WintertonI hope that I may be able to give the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) some assurances on that matter.
944 Clause 121 would insert new section 26A into the Immigration Act 1971. The section would introduce a number of offences to deal with the creation, possession and use of false or altered registration cards, which are also known as application registration cards, ARCs. Those cards are at present issued to asylum seekers and their dependants as an acknowledgement of their application for asylum. They contain information about the individual asylum seeker, including his or her name, address, nationality, date of birth, photograph and fingerprints, which are stored on a computer chip, as the hon. Gentleman said. They are issued to asylum seekers when they leave the induction process.
I emphasise that the card is not an identity card, but it will certainly speed up the process of establishing a holder's identity when reporting to the immigration service and when accessing any benefits that an asylum seeker may be entitled to at a post office. Holders of the card will not be required to carry it or to produce it to a police officer. That matter was raised in our earlier debates. Obviously, however, they may find it useful to carry the card to help to establish their identity.
Although the card has been designed to incorporate a number of security features, which will certainly make it difficult to forge or to alter, attempts may be made to do so. That is the reason why we have created the forgery offences in clause 121.
The definition of a registration card in subsection (1) of the clause refers to a card
issued…in connection with a claim for asylum",but it is possible that in future registration cards will be issued to other classes of person who are subject to immigration control. Subsection (7) therefore allows the Secretary of State to make an order by the affirmative procedure to change the definition of a registration card for the purposes of the offences in the clause. There would have to be an affirmative order to create the offence to ensure that if the card were extended to other areas, it would be an offence to forge it. The purpose of that power is to ensure that if registration cards are issued to non-asylum seekers, the offences contained in clause 121 will apply to those cards.The amendment would not affect the immigration and nationality directorate's ability to issue cards to non-asylum seekers because, as I said, clause 121 is not concerned with conferring powers to issue cards, it merely creates offences in relation to cards that have already been issued.
If the amendment is intended, therefore, to restrict IND's ability to issue cards to non-asylum seekers, it would not achieve that purpose. Obviously, it would also create an anomalous and undesirable situation, as someone could commit a criminal offence if they altered a card issued to an asylum seeker, but would not commit any offence if they forged a card that was issued to, for example, an illegal entrant.
The order-making power in subsection (7) is subject to affirmative resolution, which offers a safeguard to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise any changes in the definition of the card.
The hon. Gentleman raises several issues about the way in which the card could be extended. Perhaps I can reassure him because, as he will know, the cards are currently issued to new asylum seekers, and we have a 945 programme to extend them to existing asylum seekers. However, in future, the IND could consider issuing the card to other categories of people subject to control under immigration legislation. Obviously, the IND is not yet certain which additional categories of people will be covered by ARCs.
§ Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)My hon. Friend says that more categories of people could be included, but that would not include anyone who had received indefinite leave to remain, would it?
§ Ms WintertonI was about to refer to the type of people who would be covered. The basis of the functionality of ARCs is a biometric representation of fingerprints, so it is unlikely that an ARC could be issued to anyone who could not be fingerprinted under section 141 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That helps to explain that the categories are limited to the people who could be fingerprinted.
I could give some examples if that would assist hon. Members. For example, people who fail to produce a valid passport with a photograph or other document satisfactorily establishing their identity and nationality on arrival in the United Kingdom could perhaps be given ARCs on the basis that their identity is open to doubt. We do not know their true identity or necessarily where they came from. Even if we know both those things, to remove them from the United Kingdom we would need the co-operation of their country of origin, which is by no means a forgone conclusion. I could give other examples, but I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that we seek only to extend the categories to those people.
I now come to Government amendment No. 207. Section 28B of the Immigration Act 1971 allows a justice of the peace to issue a warrant authorising an immigration officer to enter premises to arrest a person suspected of committing a relevant offence. A relevant offence for the purposes of that section is defined in subsection (5) and includes the current offence of harbouring an illegal entrant or overstayer under section 25(2).
Clause 123(2) will add new offences relating to ARCs and the possession of an immigration stamp to the list of relevant offences. However, the present 25(2) offence will be subsumed into the general offences under proposed new sections 25 and 25B, inserted by clause 117. The power to enter to effect an arrest for those offences will come under section 28C of the 1971 Act, so there is no need for the section 25(2) offence to be a relevant offence for the purposes of section 28B. Indeed, proposed new section 25(2) does not contain a separate offence. That is why we have tabled Government amendment No. 207. I very much hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam will withdraw the amendment and accept Government amendment No. 207.
§ Mr. AllanI thank the Minister for gently and courteously informing me that I have been tilting at the wrong windmill and seeking to limit the Government's power to specify the offences involving registration cards, rather than dealing with the registration cards themselves. It remains a great joy to me that we often end up talking about things by proxy when we debate legislation in the House. For example, primary legislation is not needed to introduce the registration cards, but it is needed to create the offences that relate to them. I am sure that we shall 946 return to registration cards on many other occasions, but having heard the Minister's argument, I think it appropriate to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.