Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

It might be criminal proceedings concerning somebody else. There may be circumstances where it was appropriate for the person to leave, even though criminal proceedings were pending. I cannot think of any instances but I would not necessarily rule that out. I understand that the aim of the amendment is to make certain what the Government’s intentions are, so I tried to spell out as clearly as possible all the circumstances and to address concerns raised in another place about what my honourable friend said. The noble Lord quite rightly indicated that he understood the point about forged documents. If the documents were relevant to criminal proceedings, they could be retained on that basis. The critical issue is that, where the individual is allowed to leave the country voluntarily, we would look to get him or her re-documented if we had to hang on to the documents for other reasons—it may have nothing to do with the individual concerned. Individuals may be completely innocent in cases where their documents are not appropriate or right, in which case they should be allowed to leave and re-documentation should occur. We are interested in hanging on to such documents only where they are relevant for the purposes of an appeal or criminal proceedings. That is why this clause is included. I hope that that is as clear as possible, but I would be happy to answer any further questions in correspondence. Amendment No. 52 relates to biometrics and confirming a person’s identity. I cannot accept it because it prevents those checks being used as part of what we know is an important risk-based, intelligence-led border operation. We know, for example, that one such operation, which included checks on the passports of an EU member state, revealed that at one point of arrival some 2.5 per cent of all passports checked were fraudulent. The majority of cases involved people impersonating the rightful holder of the document. We hope that biometric checks will help us to prevent that kind of concern reoccurring. We believe that biometric checks will enable us to detect high-quality forged documents that do not on visual inspection give an immigration officer reasonable grounds to suspect that a forgery has taken place. As we have already indicated, at times of high security, there might need to be a higher level of border security checks, which might involve, for example, regular biometric checks of all holders of biometric travel documents. It is important to be able to do that more generally, and the amendment would not allow us to do so. The definition of fingerprints has been used in other Immigration Acts; it includes scans of fingerprints as well as physical prints. I am advised that it has not been suggested that the definition in relation to the Immigration Acts has ever been ambiguous, but I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about the definition being included elsewhere. I will take that away and look at it, but, as I understand it, its meaning has a well documented historical basis in other Immigration Acts. I have just been told that it is not defined in those Acts, but that the term ““fingerprints”” is used. The noble Baroness has raised an important point which I will take away to get a proper answer. Clause 27 is an important part of the jigsaw to ensure that we keep our borders secure and continue to retain documents, as appropriate. However, under the conditions and for the reasons that I have described, it is not in any way intended to prevent those who wish to travel in or out of the country doing so. The circumstances that I have indicated are those in which that power would be used. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the issue of consolidation during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill in 2002, and my noble friend Lord Bassam, responded. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, quoted St Augustine, as saying, ““Give me chastity—””